Citizendium, the alternative to Wikipedia that promises that knowledgeable experts in the field contribute to and edit articles, turns one year old today.
I have to confess that I hadn't actually visited the site more than once or twice. So I was a little taken aback when I read one of their highlighted articles on Joan of Arc. Leading off the article, there's this disclaimer:
"Article approved by an editor (see the talk page) of the History Workgroup and Military Workgroup. The Citizendium Foundation and Citizendium participants make no representations about the reliability of this article or its suitability for any purpose. Help improve this article further on the draft page!" (Emphasis added.)
At the top of the page, though, the site asks users to "Help us create the world's most trusted knowledge base," advertising its mission as "The general public and experts collaborate, using their real names. A new knowledge society."
The obvious question is, how does a reader trust the site when the site doesn't even trust its own content? I know that academics are loath to claim anything as the final word on the subject, but some sort of statement advising readers that "Citizendium editors have reviewed the content of this article and believe it to be authoritative and factually correct" might go a long way toward establishing Citizendium's credentials as the "real" Wikipedia.
Maybe that's why it's been in beta for a year. After all, can a constantly evolving encyclopedia of mankind's accumulated knowledge ever not be in beta?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment