Forum Talk:Competitors and Press/Archive 1

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Help system All recent posts Back to top Contact Administrators Archives

Competitors and Press

Discussion about anything regarding Citizendium's competitors and any press coverage about or affecting Citizendium

Pages: ContentGovernance and PolicyStyleManagementTechnical IssuesRequests for HelpCompetitors and PressArchived Boards

Larry Sanger interview

Citizendium founder Larry Sanger was interviewed via YouTube for Collegefeed a few months ago. He briefly discusses CZ and its origins in this part. He attributes CZ's situation to being "too similar to Wikipedia" and that a lot of early users left because "Wikipedia was happening and Citizendium wasn't yet". In other parts of the video, he talks about the origins of Wikipedia and InfoBitt. John Stephenson 19:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Another interview is here (about Wikipedia, experts and InfoBitt; interview in English with Greek subtitles). John Stephenson (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Article on perceived credibility of on-line encyclopedias (inc. CZ)

Research by Andrew J. Flanagin and Miriam J. Metzger published in the Information, Communication & Society journal in 2011 used Citizendium alongside Wikipedia and Encyclopædia Britannica to investigate the perceived credibility of on-line information among children and adults. The abstract states that children rated Wikipedia as less believable than either Encyclopædia Britannica or Citizendium, but did so regardless of the content (because they did the same when Wikipedia information was presented as though it came from Encyclopædia Britannica). Unfortunately, the full article is behind a paywall and I can't access it. John Stephenson 16:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

We must be networked into it: I had no difficulty accessing it. The authors haven't done their homework properly: "entries are in turn confirmed by experts prior to being posted on the site". The research is based on two sample topics, global warming and homeopathy. Our article on the latter was approved, but not by the usual procedure; instead the Editorial Council approved it on the recommendation of a single Editor, who had contributed to it. The former article here isn't approved. It looks from this as if their conclusions shouldn't be taken too seriously as far as CZ is concerned. Peter Jackson 11:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
That does raise a practical issue, though: if even educated people who're actually using the site think that, do we need a clearer and/or more prominent disclaimer template?
I don't suppose we'd get very far suggesting to the expert community that if they're going to get the blame for CZ content they'd better do something about it. Peter Jackson 17:55, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Alternative download linkPradyumna Singh 05:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

And another thing

while we're on this forum. A group of senior WP editors have got together to go on strike every Monday (How many peopel will notice?) in protest against the way WMF and JW are running the site. I haven't managed to get a very specific idea of what they're protesting against, but the general idea seems to be that the PTB side with admins and readers against the people who actually write the encyclopaedia. Peter Jackson 09:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"PTB" ? The war over there revolves around the Manchester mafia, Eric Corbett, Simon Tushingham @"Sitush", 3 or 4 admins etc. who've been regularly accused of paid editing but have now fallen out with JW / WMF over the introduction of the new editing software platforms for which Lila Tretikov was inducted. These platforms will expose MM's business, so their bitter opposition now to JW.Pradyumna Singh 13:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Powers That Be. Peter Jackson 11:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I was trying to work out how Pass the buck would fit into that round hole.Pradyumna Singh 01:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Some folks here would be interested in this Sock puppetry by an admin (and WMF's first employee) which sets the scene for the strikers.Pradyumna Singh 02:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Case is over on Wikipedia, with a highly controversial decision Wikipedia is amazing. But it’s become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess - Pradyumna Singh (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

And note that Eric only just escaped a ban, on a tied vote. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Newsweek: Manipulating Wikipedia

Manipulating Wikipedia to Promote a Bogus Business School

So this isn't just a question of obscure Wikipedian politics. It's a tale that demonstrates how Wikipedia can be cynically manipulated by companies, and how the credibility of the website is, especially in the developing world, a powerful and potentially dangerous tool. Pradyumna Singh (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not peculiar to business. All sorts of political and religious factions have been manipulating it all along. WP's system and culture aren't all that good at dealing with it. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I see some editors discussing this on WP say there are two large "chains" of such establishments in India and each has been paying people to manipulate WP in their favour and against their rival. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Google's 'truth rankings'

Google appear to be moving away from search results based mainly on link popularity, in favour of sites that contain information that is verified via their 'Knowledge Vault', i.e. an automatically-generated database. John Stephenson (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The explanation there isn't very clear, but it looks like they're replacing number of sites linking to something with number of sites agreeing with something as their criterion. I wonder how many sites simply take their "information" from WP. If most do the change wouldn't make much difference. Peter Jackson (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article on the "impossible trinity of information" and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

This article on compares various different ways of providing knowledge and argues that only the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has been able to present authoritative, comprehensive and up-to-date information (the "impossible trinity"). It compares the expert-run SEP to Wikipedia and Quora, among others (and argues that Quora tops Wikipedia, interestingly enough). However, the article also points out that similar projects for fields that move faster than philosophy have failed, and that the SEP is financially backed by Stanford (although they only pay three people). Experts are interviewed and explain why they contribute. John Stephenson (talk) 11:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Interesting comparison between a CZ and WP image

"it's clear that the image (on Wikipedia) is not a good one of the painting, as can be judged by the one provided by Citizendium, Wikipedia's competitor."

link to article Pradyumna Singh (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia bans the Daily Mail

Wikipedians are removing links to the Daily Mail from their articles following this discussion. (Those of you who aren't familiar with the Daily Mail... well done.) The tabloid is no longer considered a reliable source.

Could we ever justify such a ban? We currently have 19 articles that link to the Daily Mail, including on some controversial topics. Wouldn't it just be an admission that our sourcing guidelines don't work? John Stephenson (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that discussion a little while back. Their RS criteria are rather vague and subject to endless argument and manipulation. It's certainly been alleged that they have a left-wing bias in assessment of reliability of news sources. How would one judge that objectively? Someone once told me the criteria were originally drafted by WMF lawyers for BLP and then mindlessly (or lazily) applied to everything else. In particular, as I pointed out, it's strange that a reputation for fact-checking is a requirement for citation of opinions.
Neither the page you link to nor the one that links to gives any definition of RS. The reason, no doubt, is the theoretical CZ model of expert approval, which should obviate the need. Maybe we should have something. One possibility I suggested years ago was an extension of our concept of Editor. If a source is written or edited by someone who'd qualify as an Editor here, it would count as reliable.
Actually, of course, there's no such thing as a reliable source, except maybe extremely specialized. There are mistakes in perfectly reputable sources like EB.
I wonder whether DM will report this itself, and if so in what terms. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the guidelines are brief because it was assumed that there would be a significant number of Editors who would be able to determine what was reliable. I think it's problematic that it states that references are not required for information that is "common knowledge among experts" because something may not be at all obvious to a lay reader. It may be better to restrict this to "common knowledge" among the general public, although it is not clear what this means either. John Stephenson (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
It says this is following the practice of print encyclopaedias, which is indeed not to give references for most things. Would an expert-approved article here be any less trustworthy in that respect than that? That is, do editors of print encyclopaedias simply ask recommended experts to write articles, or do they also have those articles peer-reviewed by other experts? I suspect the former.
How much is actually "common knowledge" among the general public? And how much of that is actually true (according to experts)? Peter Jackson (talk) 15:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest that we try to provide references for all assertions, however common the knowledge they might appear. Some may consider that to be overdocumentation, but in my opinion that is preferable to underdocumentation, especially for the truly curious undergraduate or high school student unfamiliar with what we are calling common knowledge. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 00:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
In practical terms there's a lot to be said for that. The main reason we don't do that, I think, is that in theory our articles are in preparation for Editor approval, and so are supposed to approach the form they'd have then. Trying to do the same as Wikipedia, but better, might be an alternative, as you suggest. Peter Jackson (talk) 14:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
One possibility might be to use the subpage system to have two versions of an article, one trying to meet approval standards and one more like WP.
Bear in mind that the WP concept of verifiability is really a fraud. One might, at least in principle, verify that an RS says something, but one can't verify that there aren't loads of others disagreeing. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Sourceabilty would affect the way we write things. Summaries would often be more difficult. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Since we do not have a superfluity of Editors, what Peter says above about why "in theory" we do not reference all assertions does not apply at the present time. Which brings me back to the suggestion of over-documentation. Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to make a definite proposal, it should go in a different forum. You'd need to specify more exactly.
  1. Are you just proposing adding references where available?
  2. Or are you proposing including only sourced statements in articles? In this latter case
    1. would it be necessary to find a single source for each statement
    2. or would it be permissible to combine statements from different sources (which isn't usually allowed on WP)? Peter Jackson (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Further discussion of the original topic at [1]. Peter Jackson (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An interesting issue arises in that discussion. It would seem DM has relied to WP, at least online. However, the WP discussion can't link to the reply because it outs a WP editor, and WP rules forbid that. So what happens if a reliable source does so? It would seem that WP cannot cite such a source, and therefore cannot mention any facts therein unless they can find another source. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I like to consult the Media Bias Check website. About the Daily Mail, it says: "we rate Daily Mail Right Biased and Questionable due to numerous failed fact checks and poor information sourcing". Pat Palmer (talk) 12:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

JW on "our biggest difficulty with our decision-making processes"

[2]. Peter Jackson (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Ah, a link to an opinion from Jimbo Wales...
The way I see it, Wales is like the the first President of a newly independent country. Founding Presidents seem to be surrounded by yes-men and fan-boy/fan-girls. Those yes-men and fans seem to tempt the founding President with flattery; tell him or her,
"You are a genius! It is only through your prescient vision that the nation was founded! Your goals haven't been fully achieved yet, so why don't you cancel the elections to pick your successor? Let us make you the President-For-Life? it's the only way to achieve your vision!"
George Washington and Nelson Mandela had the moral strength to resist the flattery of their fans, and resist the temptation of allowing themselves to be appointed President-For-Life. Other Founding Presidents, like Robert Mugabe, did suspend the electoral process.
I see Jimbo Wales as having followed the Robert Mugabe model. I believe he has been a huge danger to the wikipedia. Washington, and Mandela, not only didn't interfere with the elections of their successors, they also were careful not to make their successors jobs more difficult, by weighing in on current issues. George Swan (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Mugabe has never been declared President for Life. In fact he wasn't the country's first president: that honour belonged to Comrade the Reverend His Excellency President Canaan Banana (honestly, not an April Fool; that was his official title). Mugabe simply rigs the election and/or terrorizes the opposition any time he looks like losing.

JW has, in theory, certain reserve powers, like the Queen, but in practice never uses them, hasn't for years, and says he doesn't expect ever to do so. Certainly he does express opinions from time to time, and these are treated with respect, maybe too much as you say.

In this case, though, I'm citing something he said against WP. It's a long-standing rule of evidence that things people say against themselves are particularly worthy of credence. Peter Jackson (talk) 14:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


Jimmy Wales has announced 'Wikitribune', a news service in which professional journalists will write stories which are fact-checked and kept neutral by a volunteer community. Financial supporters determine the topics that are covered. Edits are approved by trusted reviewers. (This is what various news articles are saying; perhaps this isn't the final model.)

I've noticed a few comments pointing out that ironically this is more like Citizendium. However, I don't think Wikitribune is going to require real, verified identities for everyone, and furthermore we neither pay anyone to edit nor grant donors the right to a say over what gets published. John Stephenson (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's similar in having two different types of contributors: "proper" journalists and amateurs. Like our Editors and Authors to some extent. The impression I got from his interview on Today was that the details of the collaboration system have yet to be worked out. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
The contributor groups appear to be swapped around: professionals actually write the articles, but volunteers fact-check them, neutralise the language, fix typos and update the material as necessary. I'm not sure how many professionals would want non-journalists going all over their work. Still, Wales has recruited three of his target ten journalists with 27 days to go. John Stephenson (talk) 11:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, it may be interesting to see whether they can come up with something better than WP's inadequate procedures for ensuring neutrality. Peter Jackson (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Out of date

An illustration of what happens when you've got a declining editor base trying to maintain an ever-increasing number of articles. The topical article Freedom_of_religion_in_Myanmar is almost entirely taken (legally, and with acknowledgment) from a US State Department report from 2007. It's thus ten years out of date.

Of course, we're subject to exactly the same problem. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

WP reference desk

"WP:RD_still_amazing_proof_of_expert_editors"? I wonder. People might like to keep an eye on the RD for subjects they know something about and see how true this might be. Peter Jackson (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

WP ArbCom election

12 candidates for 8 places. Not massively better than us. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Results now announced. I can't remember ever hearing of any of those elected before. Wonder what that signifies. Peter Jackson (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Just come across this. Apparently Larry's recently joined it. Quick look doesn't turn up a very clear idea of how it's supposed to work. Main idea seems to be to dump WP's requirement of notability. Verifiability and neutrality are still supposed to be policy, but I can't find either definitions or systems of enforcement. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and it's connected to something called "blockchain", which I've never heard of before. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Isn't "blockchain" something to do with the overall Bitcoin process? Even the key factor in it? 01:42, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
This is the first time I'd heard of it. Apparently, most of the articles are copied from the English Wikipedia. Larry has just joined them and has an article on blockchaining in which he explains how it's supposed to work. John Stephenson (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that is interesting. Larry envisages something bigger than EP itself (it's not clear whether EP does). There would be some form of navigation enabling people to explore all different articles on a subject on all websites, including ours. Individuals and groups could rank them, and there's also some idea of overall, democratic ranking. Details unclear, but it seems we'd all be part of something bigger (whether we like it or not): EP, WP, CZ, Wikinfo, RationalWiki, Conservapedia ... Peter Jackson (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this technical stuff. Maybe someone's got some idea whether this will actually happen, and if so when. It would have major implications for us. Psychologically, being part of a universal network, not just a small site, would be encouraging, as would the expectation that good articles here would actually get noticed. If this is really happening, we might think about adopting at least the general idea of Anthony's proposal for adding citations. Properly sourced articles are more likely to be regarded as good. This would apply less to expert-approved articles, as they're "reliable sources" in their own right. But citation needn't be required as mindlessly as on WP. Combining sourced statements to reach a conclusion wouldn't lead people to regard an article as bad as long as it's made clear just what's happening. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia and gender

Mildly interesting exchange here on Twitter about gender bias that we keep being mentioned in. (As an aside, it appears that WikiMedia have no problem with whoever runs their UK Twitter account getting into arguments with people.) It includes the claim that Wikipedia replicates wider social power structures, so fewer women edit. I wonder how much this is true, given that Wikipedia is pseudonymous; it would be easier for us, actually, to discriminate, because we require real identities. (And it superficially looks like we do, since all our active contributors are men.) John Stephenson (talk) 15:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

We might consider looking for a way to incentivize our active male contributors to each recruit a female contributor.Anthony.Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I've spent *years* trying recruit both male AND female contributors -- never with any success. Sigh. Hayford Peirce (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion on WP

[3] Peter Jackson (talk) 17:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Archived at [4]. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Latest thought from RW

[5] Peter Jackson (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


Interesting comment. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia feud

See [6]. The "community" is up in arms, with little opposition, after intervention by the WMF "Trust and Safety" committee. I'm reminded of C. S. Lewis's remark that the greatest public danger is the Committee of Public Safety. Is this about snowflakism? Peter Jackson (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, i've been away for a couple of weeks, will have to check this out.Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

[7] predicts what might happen. Its author doesn't seem to have noticed that the first two things are already happening, though presumably for different reasons, the first of them since 2007. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't make head or tail of what's going on over there although I visited several sites connected with the ban. Can you point me to a SINGLE spot in which it is stated clearly WHAT nefarious deeds Fram was apparently up to in order to warrant such drastic action? Thanks! Hayford Peirce (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
No, because it's an official secret, at least in detail, though it's in the general area of harassment (it took quite a while for them to come out with even that much). People are telling anecdotes from "real life" of employers and universities presuming anyone accused of harassment guilty till proven innocent, and refusing to tell them what they're accused of, so making it virtually impossible for them even to do that. They don't want WMF imposing such a regime on WP. An arbitrator, a few admins and an unknown number of ordinary editors are already on strike in protest, and there are various proposals for more extensive ones. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing THAT up! I didn't THINK I was so stupid as to not be able to understand a clear, straightforward narrative -- IF one existed in the first place! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:26, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Interesting comment by a/the leading mediator on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: " The English Wikipedia is able to deal effectively with trolls, vandals, flamers, and other editors who are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. It does not deal effectively with harassment, misogyny, bullying, persistent POV-pushing, or intractable content disputes involving reliability of sources." He seems to be saying ArbCom are too scared of the "community" (lynch mob?) so WMF have to intervene. Not many people on that side (JW & supporters calling for calm isn't a "side"). As the whole thing is secret it's not clear to me whether WMF are actually trying to impose sensible policy on WP or just protecting snowflakes from free speech (PCGM). If the latter, it would make WP's problems worse, not better. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like some of them are operating their own little Star Chamber....Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:17, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Some people have been saying exactly that. Peter Jackson (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
You saw it first in Citizendium, hehe! Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

The story has now made it into real life media: [8]. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Thanks for unearthing it -- now to see if I can find the 100,000 pages of Fram discussion, hehe. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

WP on RW

Now Wikipedia are arguing over whether Rationalwiki is an encyclopaedia: [9]. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

More from WMF

Draft recommendations from a WMF working group:

  1. 1.3.2 "At present, the only required “safe space” policy exists for ... change would directly change ... the tenet that “anyone can edit”, replacing it with “anyone can edit who agrees to our code of conduct”."
  2. 2.3a.4 "4.The classic notion of an encyclopaedia and ‘universal knowledge’ needs to be discarded ... The idea of encyclopedic knowledge feels problematic. What is a “universal knowledge”? Who gets to decide what is “universal”? We need to focus on moving from a single center to multiple ones."
  3. 2.3b "It eliminates the western points of view on what is universal knowledge"

Peter Jackson (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)


For the first time in ages, someone is actually exercising their right to make a formal appeal from ArbCom to JW: [10]. Peter Jackson (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm been following this, more or less, but it seems to be a deeply confused situation. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2019 (UTC)


WP reports Larry has just resigned from it, but cites no source. Peter Jackson (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Having seen Peter's post here, I've just found this. Apparently, Larry wants to create a decentralised network of encyclopaedia projects with common standards. This is the first I've heard about it. John Stephenson (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Not very informative, is it? I wonder whether it's anything to do with what was discussed in #Everipedia above. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, something like that: RW gives a much more useful link: [11]. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


On WP at [12] finds that an article produced by a mixture of people with different strongly held views is likely to be rated better by the "community". Peter Jackson (talk) 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify: what they're saying is 2 rival gangs of editors from the 2 sides will produce a "better" article than "neutral" editors, but this doesn't apply to a gang versus a lone voice. Peter Jackson (talk) 11:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

The old thesis, antithesis, synthesis, no? Where have I heard that before? Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hegel, n'est-ce pas?

But what I'm really interested in is what they, we, or any other present or hypothetical site might learn from this. To put things together:

  1. if you've got gangs of editors from both sides, you get a good article (eventually)
  2. if 1 side is seriously unrepresented, you get a biased article
  3. if both sides are seriously underrepresented, you get a humdrum or mediocre article

In the light of this, is there a way forward for a collaborative encyclopaedia project? Peter Jackson (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Like all theories, it sounds good--in theory. I personally agree with #2; gangs can and often do suppress lone voices. But I'm not sure I agree that two large opposing gangs always produce anything good. Sometimes they just can never reach any reasonable accommodation, although they might succeed in preventing each side from excesses. Nor can I agree that people working with little oversight always produce "bad" articles. Of course, we are all here in part because we believe there is possible benefit from some degree of collaboration. In Citizendium, we now hope will reduce the likelihood of major control struggles in the future by acknowledging that authors may want to act as leads on an article for a (possibly short) period of time and giving them lea-way to do so. We also will allow multiple articles on a given topic if a situation arises where two people have fire in their belly to own the same topic but have different approaches to the material. We'll allow that via a disambiguation page, and it does not preclude that those two authors would also help each other out via suggestions on the Talk page. This, like previous working models, is experimental, and we shall see if anyone ever tries that out.Pat Palmer (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Official Monster Raving Loony Party

seems to be contesting ArbCom election: [13]. Peter Jackson (talk) 10:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile, Peter!Pat Palmer (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"Sometimes this place is beyond parody"

"In a true only-on-Wikipedia moment, the only person on that thread to support the imposition of a code of conduct is now indefinitely blocked for repeated violations of our (existing) conduct policies." Peter Jackson (talk) 11:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Interesting article on WP

[14] Peter Jackson (talk) 10:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

It takes the author a while to get to the point that gatekeepers in Wikipedia are "stifling innovation in favor of ossification". But glad to see that we are not the only ones to think so.Pat Palmer (talk) 11:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Book that may be of interest

And apparently free download! [15] Peter Jackson (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks interesting; I will check this out. Thanks! BTW I learned that the moderators of Physics Forums, after a long debate, decided that Wikipedia ought not to be allowed as a reference in technical debates.Pat Palmer (talk) 11:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Has the role of editors been deprecated or superceded?

Is there a summary of changes to policy, and other stuff, over the last bunch of years?

I've been away years. Checking some of the introductory documents I see some changes, that surprised me. In particular I saw a section on citizendium editors had been overstruck. Can someone explain this to me?

During the years I was active, at the Citizendium, my impression was that, with very few exceptions, participants were nicer to one another than on the wikipedia. Partly that may be just nicer people, but partly I think it was due to the early decision that everyone use their true name.

It was my interaction with one particular editor that drove me away from the Citizendium. Anyone who was active at that time can probably guess who that was. I am glad he too is long gone, although I have seen him active at Quora.

So, is there still a plan to have a hierarchy of articles? If the section on Editors has been overstruck, who promotes those best articles to citable status?

In the interests of transparency - I was indefinitely blocked from participation at the wikipedia. That is one reason you see me back here. Regardless of how damning people there find the accusations against me, I think it is important that I didn't do what I am accused of doing. I am sure most people here want to leave wikipedia drama over there. I just wanted to go on record, in case anyone hears about it, and it made them wonder if they could trust me... I think you can, because, while I did make a minor lapse, one I consider uncharacteristic of me, I didn't do 99 percent of what I am accused of doing.

Cheers! George Swan (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

George, we have so few writers these days that the distinction between Editors and Authors no longer matters at all. We still have a number of Citable articles, but we are not necessarily encouraging people to make those any more, in part because we do not have enough experts to do review. And yes, we now value cordiality highly, and most of us have also had discouraging experiences of one sort or another over at Wikipedia, where so many articles are under tight control by an author whose identity is unknown. Things are very calm in Citizendium these days. If you have any issues with others, please feel free to consult with me on what to do before letting yourself get frustrated or upset.Pat Palmer (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the quick reply. George Swan (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)