Examining our membership base

[Denis Cavanagh]

Our membership base seems to be almost entirely comprised of people who are pissed off from bad experiences on Wikipedia. How do we move on beyond this?

[J. Noel Chiappa]

Our membership base seems to be almost entirely comprised of people who are pissed off from bad experiences on Wikipedia. How do we move on beyond this?

Do we need to? :-) Seriously, that's a large group of people right there! But I wouldn't worry about it - over time, as CZ takes off, we'll draw in new people. And I wouldn't worry about whether it will take off - it definitely has the 'taking off' vibe (in terms of the internal community).

External recognition will come, too, in time (as it did with Wikipedia); 'build it, and they will come'. Just as our intial base of contributors are people who are dissatisfied with Wikipedia, our initial base of users will be the same - people who are unhappy with the fact that you can't rely on Wikipedia, and that the article content can be uneven quality and/or biased.

Noel

[tkjazzer]

i like both WP and CZ. there are definitely members here who like both - but I'm more of a reader and a following the action, contributing a bit here and there more than I am actively writing large numbers of articles.  But I don't really write at WP either (again, just a bit here and there too) when I'm reading.

[Brian P Long]

Hey Denis-

I'd just like to offer myself up as a negative counter-example. I have had pretty limited experience with WP-- I've made a handful of minor edits (and the occasional graffiti revert) and written up a couple of paragraphs (probably no more than a page or two total). No more than the average computer-literate user, I think.

As a reader, I find WP generally frustrating to use. It's fine if you want a brief introduction to a topic, to get someone's dates or to make sure you haven't missed major news stories about celebrities, but I'm always real hesitant to wade into a long WP article on something I'm interested in. I usually end up going to the library and using a more reliable reference work.

I heard about Citizendium, and while I was not instantly convinced, I have become really enthusiastic about the project. I have pitched the project to somewhere around 25 people for recruitment purposes-- most of whom I do not think have done anything with WP.

In retrospect, while I was chary of the real names policy at CZ at first, it is really a boon to the conscientious reader (as approved articles will be, in time). More people will come, and I think they will find it attractive for the same reasons I do.

-Brian

[Denis Cavanagh]

Personally I feel WP and citizendium can be partners in the future. For Academic articles, Citizendium will lead the way. For trivia, films, bands, songs, tv-shows, general information etc. WP will prevail. I think most of us will acknowledge this. The problem with WP is that it has become a massive buraucracy where no-one is really in charge, but hundreds of scarily active admins rule the roost and often conflict with each other, spouting often contradictory policies. The place is an anarchists wet dream, and I think when the Editorial Council is in full gear, with a strong Editor in Chief (Every encyclopedia project needs one, I don't know why WP ignores this) we will have a much more pleasant and less chaotic place to work.

[Aleta Curry]

Sounds like you're answering your own question.

[Christian Kleineidam]

I also don't have much wikipedia experience besides a few minor edits.

[Christopher J. Reiss]

Our membership base seems to be almost entirely comprised of people who are pissed off from bad experiences on Wikipedia. How do we move on beyond this?

This may simply reflect the fact that wikipedia has pissed off every known form of sentience, three out of four forces of nature, a water-born fungus in Australia and sixty four species of birds.

[Aleta Curry]

Ten-pointer, Christopher!  That's hilarious!!