All, I just had a thought. (I'm not sure how these thoughts come to me, they just do.)
Many people have essentially asked me, "Since Wikipedia is 'good enough,' what is the point of the Citizendium?" The answer, of course, is that Wikipedia *isn't* good enough, and given its policies, it is highly unlikely that it ever will be. More to the point, over the long haul, the Citizendium can do better. But that's always my reply. It now occurs to me that the underlying insight has not been emphasized enough. As I look at various encyclopedia articles--and my own writings--I am struck by *how much work* there is to do, to perfect them. For example, to find exactly the right reference, and place it at exactly the right place, is very difficult and time-consuming. Most people don't spend the time needed to get it exactly right. A work is hailed as brilliant if it merely doesn't get anything too badly wrong. Well, the great thing about the Citizendium is that we have the (growing) community and the (developing) policies that is allowing us to grow not just *another* encyclopedia, but a *continuously improving* encyclopedia. That is the brilliance of our plan. The day we look forward to is not the day when we have millions of articles, but the day when serious professionals say, "The Citizendium articles in my area are of such stunning quality that I can't imagine how they could be improved. They have been worked and reworked by hundreds, or thousands, of specialists, in my field. They contain, of course, no known factual errors. The coverage is complete; the tiniest details are covered in more specialized articles. The writing reflects consistently superb craftsmanship: accessible to the college student on more basic topics (without removing accuracy), and clear on more advanced topics. The citations are brilliantly chosen, always reflecting the best (original, or most authoritative) sources. They do not favor any side in any controversy, but provide full details of the debate, so that the reader can be fully informed so as to make up his or her own mind. The bibliographies and external links, fully annotated, list virtually every credible source on their topics. The other supplementary material, on subpages, is of equally high quality. In short, the only reason to change the articles (and whole clusters) now is that the field itself changes." An article is one thing. A magisterial article is quite another. The difference is huge and hugely important. It's a long road from here to there. Wikipedia is very, very far from that point, and again I doubt it will ever reach that point; if I thought they did, I wouldn't have started CZ. We, however, have a chance! In fact, in view of this, you might well ask yourself: what is the point *of Wikipedia*? It's never going to get past a certain level of mediocrity. I think that, as the years go by, we are going to find more and more people asking themselves that--and coming to CZ. Because it's *not* just about quantity. It's about quality. And we have the nascent community and policies in place that actually have a chance to achieve the sort of high quality a global collaboration of scholars can achieve. Mind you, I still think it's all right if we start with stubs; we have to start somewhere. But we should also keep our eyes on the prize, because our substantial promise of achieving that sort of stunning quality is really what makes it all worthwhile. --Larry P.S. Could someone, please, adapt the above and add it to either [[CZ:About]] or [[CZ:FAQ]]? Also, I'd like to see recommendations on the forums about how this might clarify our implicit mission statements in [[Mediawiki:Sitenotice]] and also [[Main Page]]. _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
