I'm not Larry, but here's my take (whether you want it or not). The idea is that the editors lead the authors in a sense. Editors have the power to "approve" pages, and editors have the final word in content disputes. Authors still are pretty essential (because they still do a lot of the researching and copy-editing and also will outnumber editors). Authors will likely have more time (since they will also outnumber editors), and it is after all a "citizen's compendium". There are plenty of things that authors can do, and just because someone doesn't have a Ph.D. or a Masters doesn't mean that they aren't smart people who can help the project a great deal. The way this differs from Wikipedia is that on Wikipedia, experts have exactly zero advantages over non-experts. If you and your worst student both worked on a Wikipedia article, he could argue with you to Hell and back over some point of content (on which he's clearly wrong), and be allowed to get away with it. In fact, he'd probably win by virtue of having the most free time. On Citizendium, you would have the say on the content (especially with sources you'd find), and if he was too much of a pain in the butt, you could call a constable and he'd "drop the banhammer". The other way we differ is in separation of powers and definition of roles. On Wikipedia, the administrators handle both the content aspects and the discipline aspects. They ruled the roost and some of them wound up abusing that*. On Citizendium, we have a separation of powers between the editors and the constables. This should reduce abuse. Lastly, by using real names, we're helping to foster a different environment. Now that I know you as Professor Truncellito, and you know me as Zachary Pruckowski, it changes the relationship in a positive way. It's a different atmosphere than one where you're Truncster and I'm AlpineBovine**. It's an atmosphere that encourages cooperation and discourages vandalism. I hope some of this helps. Zach Pruckowski * = the vast majority of admins on WP were good guys, and no disrespect to any of them is intended. ** = I totally made those both up, and I imagine neither of us would use them as handles. On Nov 9, 2006, at 8:10 PM, Dave Truncellito wrote: I appreciate the fact that there will be non-expert *authors*, and this was indeed clear from the beginning, as you note. However, the *editors'* expertise is, I had thought, a distinguishing feature of this project, and you're now denying that as well. So, if non-expert involvement is permitted and encouraged at both the authorial and the editorial stage, then what distinguishes this project from Wikipedia, and in what sense is it "based on expert opinion"? |
_______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
