On 19 April 2010 09:07, Charles Matthews <charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > 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).
You are aware that Nupedia wasn't a wiki, right? _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l