Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 18 April 2010 22:25, The Cunctator <cuncta...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Actually, we do know, because Citizendium is just a retread of Nupedia, >> which wasn't going anywhere. >> > > Nupedia was supposed to be experts writing articles. Citizendium is > (in theory) anyone writing articles and experts resolving disputes and > approving articles. That is a very different model. > > Different, not "very different".
Anyway wikis of a certain size and achievement (done some useful writing but not going to set the world on fire) tend, I guess, to have features in common because of the type and scale of the communities involved. It seems that "social structure" = "the rut we're in" is about right for these communities, including Citizendium. I don't think the English Wikipedia is immune from the "rut", but we are the ones with the "very different" model. I think what Phil Sandifer was saying is not correct, but that is because I would argue that utility of a piece of hypertext shouldn't be measured as if the hyperlinks don't matter (we saw this when the big rush on [[Michael Jackson]] caused all that traffic to [[vitiligo]]): surf's up. And I would also argue that the policy and community superstructure is useful (though not all of it, and not all uniformly useful, of course). Charles _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l