I felt rather confused about the name of the project when I first
heard it, but didn't give it much thought until I read this
post. Since it appears I'm not the only one who doesn't feel right
about the name, here are my thoughts:
> 1. If it is a fork of Wikipedia, as it is, it should not give up
> its parental association by abandoning the root term "wiki" in the
> new name but *must* retain it in a suitable form.
I disagree. The project is supposed to be a reliable source of
knowledge, no matter what the technical background. Its policies also
differ very strongly from what we have learnt to know and accept as a
"wiki" in the last few years. Having "wiki" in the name might give it
an appearance of just another wiki or a Wikipedia knock-off.
> 2. The name *Citizendium* does not appear appropriate (with
> apologies to whosoever invented it). We are here not as *Citizens*
> but as *Experts* (whatever be our field of specialization and level
> of expertise). The name "Citizendium" appears to connote a
> *compendium* by citizens (who no doubt have at times questionable
> knowledge- hence the origin of this fork)
>
> 3. Also, and very importantly, the word "Citizen" invariably brings
> into question its relationship with "State" (for example, a petition
> to the State for redressing citizens' grievances, and citizens'
> rights and duties, which are irrelevant to our project). Moreover,
> *citizen* is specific to a country while our project is, hopefully,
> global and all-embracing, as an encyclopedia should be.
I agree entirely. Even if you think of the target audience as part of
the name, "citizen" is too specific and cannot be used to cover anyone
in the world (there just is no simple way of expressing "the public"
in a single word that's entirely correct and universal).
> 5. *Wikipendium* appears to be a better term. (However,
> *compendium,* says, COD, is *a collection of concise but detailed
> information about a particular subject.* (emphasis supplied). Thus
> the limitation of this new name, though better than *Citizendium,*
> is that it is concerned with a *particular subject* and not with
> *all the subjects,* as is the case with our project and for that
> matter with any encyclopedia.
I think this is still too complicated. I think the name should be
something easy to remember ("Citizendium" isn't, as far as I'm
concerned), and it should be universal. It doesn't have to have
anything specific to the audience (which is everyone, thus
non-specific), or to the technical background (wiki, whatever, who
cares, other than those writing the articles). I'd say it's more
appropriate to focus on what the project delivers -- universal
knowledge. We don't have to use an English word, something like
ancient Greek (or even Latin) would do, and I'm sure we can make up
something from words like "episteme", "sophos", "logos", "cosmos",
etc., or their Latin equivalents. In my opinion, it would be best to
stick with one word and modify it slightly. A name is like piece of
art, the simpler, the more beautiful and universal.
Alternatively, how about a name from Greek or Roman mythology? The
Roman god of wisdom was called Minerva, a name not used very often by
companies and other projects (unlike the Greek Athena), so why not
make something of it?
I'm not giving any actual suggestions yet in an attempt not to bias
any follow-up discussion that will (hopefully) unfold...
Andras (physicist, Ph.D.)
_______________________________________________
Citizendium-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
