Wild idea: "Wikipedia" subpage for CZ articles!

[Arne Eickenberg]

Wikipedia is importing articles from Citizendium, and sooner or later they will start to rework them, add their own things to the mix etc., if they haven't done so already. We all know of WP's disadvantages in terms of article quality, fact vs. bias and opinion etc. and the adverse health effects their swarm actions can have on people of intelligence or integrity, who attempt to write there, as one recent discussion topic mentions again here. (I can only second that. I've had terrible WP experiences myself… really terrible.)

Due to the nature of the beast people searching the web will find the imported (and probably altered) WP article first, and if we're lucky they will discover the short note pertaining to Citizendium at the very bottom of the article or on the discussion page and realize that it actually originated here at CZ. (I don't know how this priority of WP over CZ can be prevented with regard to imported CZ articles. I personally think it's not fair… but what the heck, the world isn't fair—and it's our own fault anyway.)

In any case, my main concern is with the alterations made to imported CZ articles at WP. Therefore I suggest a subpage for CZ articles called "Wikipedia" or "WP", where CZ authors can address changes made to their articles at WP and comment, criticize or review them. Alternatively it can be called "External" and include not only Wikipedia, but any online or print publication referring to the CZ article.

[Howard C. Berkowitz]

I'd be hesitant, but for what might not be an obvious reason.  (Puts on Military hat) Defense is hard. I think we spend far too much, and often futile, time in reaction to WP.

It would be interesting to see what percentage of content remains from imported articles; I'm heavily revising things where I wasn't the primary editor. At some point in the future, we might look at the issues of banning importing, that, in turn, creating a moral barrier against the reverse.

Rather than an external page, I'd much rather see us spend effort in our featuring -- well, I was going to say our differences, but that's the wrong mindset. We have to accept we are different, not just "Wikipedia done right", and feature those differences when they are ready.

[Martin Baldwin-Edwards]

It might, at least, be a good idea to record somewhere those CZ articles that have been imported into WP -- noting those which are unaltered (e.g. International Economics, the last time I looked), mildly tampered with, or horribly mutilated.

[Hayford Peirce]

A couple of months ago I ported over the article that I had written here about Richard Condon's novel The Oldest Confession, just to see what would happen to it.  To my surprise, I would say that it has only been "mildly tampered with", and almost certainly the WP authors who did the editing would argue that they had improved it.  I certainly can't say that they vandalized or trashed it.  A little bit of stuff was switched around to make it fit into the Wikipedian Procrustean bed, of course, but not to the point of making one want to despair.  Probably the article is so boring, and about so obscure a subject, that no one over there can be bothered to trash it....

[Daniel Mietchen]

Interestingly, the reverse perspective has also been discussed (some weeks after Larry's announcement of CZ): "In an ideal world, the complex expert-reviewed system Larry would like to build (with all the complexity and expense Clay identifies) could live in an "Expert Reviewed" tab on Wikipedia."

But I agree with Howard in that, rather than always comparing us to (the English) Wikipedia, we should concentrate on pushing forward, playing with, and publicizing (when time is ripe) the expert-guided public wiki model. A more general subpage that deals with CZ coverage elsewhere may be worth another thought once such coverage becomes wider.

[Daniel Mietchen]

Interestingly, the reverse perspective has also been discussed (some weeks after Larry's announcement of CZ): "In an ideal world, the complex expert-reviewed system Larry would like to build (with all the complexity and expense Clay identifies) could live in an "Expert Reviewed" tab on Wikipedia."

But I agree with Howard in that, rather than always comparing us to (the English) Wikipedia, we should concentrate on pushing forward, playing with, and publicizing (when time is ripe) the expert-guided public wiki model. A more general subpage that deals with CZ coverage elsewhere may be worth another thought once such coverage becomes wider.

Just saw that this had already been a subject at the forums before:

http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/11/20/social_facts_expertise_citizendium_and_carr.php

How would you respond?  I don't have time now, unfortunately.  I might respond next week on the CZ blog, if I have time.