Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-10-18 at 13:23:05
One of the creators of Wikipedia is creating a new site similar to wiki called "Citizendum". The reason behind it is because he says that too many people are allowed to post biased materials.
So, Wikipedia or Citizendum?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db...00779e2340.html
So, Wikipedia or Citizendum?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e62ce8a4-5d3e-11db...00779e2340.html
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (SEN)Dante50 on 2006-10-18 at 17:10:56
Wikipedia FTW! Look at it this way. There are several reasons of why Wikipedia will always own:
- They are much more well known, so they will get many more hits.
- They have been up for years, so they have uncountable amouts of articles. More info, more popularity.
- It will take Citizendum 8 years to get as popular as Wikipedia is now.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-18 at 17:42:15
Does he realize Wikipedia is a Wiki, and that he can edit it? 
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-10-18 at 17:59:37
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Oct 18 2006, 04:42 PM)
Does he realize Wikipedia is a Wiki, and that he can edit it?
[right][snapback]576418[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]576418[/snapback][/right]
Does he realize how stupid the name Citizendium is? I doubt it. Never put it past the maker to know nothing of their creation.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-10-18 at 18:00:54
Although that may be true, I think the administrators and the community on Wikpedia does a very good job of maintaining all of the articles. I haven't ever had a problem with people editting stuff..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-18 at 18:44:43
I see "Citizen's Addendum", which makes perfect sense to me.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-10-18 at 20:04:57
Wikipedia really is a poor source for college/university level work. Don't rely on it because a lot of it is actually inaccurate.
Also, I'd like to know how this guy defines 'bias.'
Also, I'd like to know how this guy defines 'bias.'
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-10-19 at 05:34:22
QUOTE(Mini Moose 2707 @ Oct 18 2006, 05:44 PM)
I see "Citizen's Addendum", which makes perfect sense to me.
[right][snapback]576453[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]576453[/snapback][/right]
Actually, it's a portmanteau of 'citizens' and 'compendium'. And it's still a bad name.
[quote=Citizendium.org]
Introduction
The Citizendium (sit-ih-ZEN-dee-um), a "citizens' compendium of everything," will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by (SEN)Dante50 on 2006-10-19 at 15:33:44
QUOTE(CaptainWill @ Oct 18 2006, 08:04 PM)
Wikipedia really is a poor source for college/university level work. Don't rely on it because a lot of it is actually inaccurate.
[right][snapback]576484[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]576484[/snapback][/right]
Due to several polls, surveys and hours of reasearch, it has been found that Wikipedia is nearly 67% more accurate than Encyclopedia Britanica
(for those who don't know, EB is supposedly the most accurate encyclopedia there is). Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-10-22 at 13:41:44
QUOTE(Dante50 @ Oct 19 2006, 07:33 PM)
Due to several polls, surveys and hours of reasearch, it has been found that Wikipedia is nearly 67% more accurate than Encyclopedia Britanica (for those who don't know, EB is supposedly the most accurate encyclopedia there is).
[right][snapback]576692[/snapback][/right]
(for those who don't know, EB is supposedly the most accurate encyclopedia there is). [right][snapback]576692[/snapback][/right]
So never use an encyclopedia for uni-level research.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by CaptainWill on 2006-10-23 at 15:02:06
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Oct 23 2006, 09:32 PM)
So what would you suggest people use?
[right][snapback]577795[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]577795[/snapback][/right]
A combination of primary and secondary sources (Wikipedia is secondary).
Journal articles, diaries, reports from government commissions, proceedings of meetings, books by historians, speeches and administrative records are just some of the materials that can be used to build up an accurate picture of events.
Wikipedia is probably fine for high-school, and it is good for some things (like technological stuff - if I want to know the workings of an L2 Cache then I know where I'll be looking), but at university you'll get your essays handed back to you if you use it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-10-23 at 17:32:57
So what would you suggest people use?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Knx. on 2006-10-29 at 07:53:56
This thing will never get pop, they are just little guys that think wikipedia sux and think they can do better.
They are like windows user, and wiki is "open source".
Windows or Open Source OS ?
Closed wikipedia or Wikipedia ?
Wikipedia FTW
They are like windows user, and wiki is "open source".
Windows or Open Source OS ?
Closed wikipedia or Wikipedia ?
Wikipedia FTW
Report, edit, etc...Posted by dumbducky on 2006-10-29 at 07:59:49
The funny thing about that comparison is that windows is way more popular than open source OS.
Besides, Citizendium is just wikipedia with tighter control.
Besides, Citizendium is just wikipedia with tighter control.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Mini Moose 2707 on 2006-10-30 at 14:26:55
QUOTE(Deathawk @ Oct 23 2006, 05:32 PM)
So what would you suggest people use?
The sources that Wikipedia articles cite, so you can interpret things for yourself.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-10-30 at 15:32:00
Citizendium it will clearly be better than Wikipedia since on Wikipedia, any random moron that knows how to use the internet can post all these bull sh*t in wikipedia.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Deathawk on 2006-10-30 at 17:45:25
So can any random genius add good stuff, though..
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-10-30 at 19:08:00
Which is unlikely because I'm sure a random genius wouldnt waste their time there.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Syphon on 2006-10-30 at 20:08:03
QUOTE(EcHo @ Oct 30 2006, 03:32 PM)
Citizendium it will clearly be better than Wikipedia since on Wikipedia, any random moron that knows how to use the internet can post all these bull sh*t in wikipedia.
[right][snapback]580953[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]580953[/snapback][/right]
Don't censor words with one star, it's against the rules.
Also, Wikipedia is maintended from having that by useful member who cite references and revert vandalism. I vandalize Wikipedia.... Enough, but it's always fixed within 5 minutes.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-11-02 at 18:49:07
Wikipedia is a collection of essays that has gained much praise among us internet junkies.
For College essays and such, I only cite Wikipedia for opinions on a topic, not as an actual citation that would be used in my arguement. Usually, I would provide an analysis and then counter it or agree with it by certain parameters and providing actual first hand sources.
First hand sources are generally press releases, be it political, scientific and whatever. Say you are writting a thesis based upon De Broglie's hypothesis that mentions that electrons have wave-like properties, you are to explain how he came to that conclusion. You won't cite Wikipedia, because ALL internet based articles can be wrong. You will want to cite a book, more specifically a quantum mechanics book, preferably a text book. The only information you will cite from the internet is that of which, in this example, scientists themselves have said and someone quoted it on the internet.
For College essays and such, I only cite Wikipedia for opinions on a topic, not as an actual citation that would be used in my arguement. Usually, I would provide an analysis and then counter it or agree with it by certain parameters and providing actual first hand sources.
First hand sources are generally press releases, be it political, scientific and whatever. Say you are writting a thesis based upon De Broglie's hypothesis that mentions that electrons have wave-like properties, you are to explain how he came to that conclusion. You won't cite Wikipedia, because ALL internet based articles can be wrong. You will want to cite a book, more specifically a quantum mechanics book, preferably a text book. The only information you will cite from the internet is that of which, in this example, scientists themselves have said and someone quoted it on the internet.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by EcHo on 2006-11-02 at 19:02:41
QUOTE(BeeR_KeG @ Nov 2 2006, 06:49 PM)
Wikipedia is a collection of essays that has gained much praise among us internet junkies.
For College essays and such, I only cite Wikipedia for opinions on a topic, not as an actual citation that would be used in my arguement. Usually, I would provide an analysis and then counter it or agree with it by certain parameters and providing actual first hand sources.
First hand sources are generally press releases, be it political, scientific and whatever. Say you are writting a thesis based upon De Broglie's hypothesis that mentions that electrons have wave-like properties, you are to explain how he came to that conclusion. You won't cite Wikipedia, because ALL internet based articles can be wrong. You will want to cite a book, more specifically a quantum mechanics book, preferably a text book. The only information you will cite from the internet is that of which, in this example, scientists themselves have said and someone quoted it on the internet.
[right][snapback]582332[/snapback][/right]
For College essays and such, I only cite Wikipedia for opinions on a topic, not as an actual citation that would be used in my arguement. Usually, I would provide an analysis and then counter it or agree with it by certain parameters and providing actual first hand sources.
First hand sources are generally press releases, be it political, scientific and whatever. Say you are writting a thesis based upon De Broglie's hypothesis that mentions that electrons have wave-like properties, you are to explain how he came to that conclusion. You won't cite Wikipedia, because ALL internet based articles can be wrong. You will want to cite a book, more specifically a quantum mechanics book, preferably a text book. The only information you will cite from the internet is that of which, in this example, scientists themselves have said and someone quoted it on the internet.
[right][snapback]582332[/snapback][/right]
Not all of them are wrong. The .gov and .edu sites are the ones that are most accurate. And yeah, books are the best way to cite information but some books are like the internet, some are all bs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-11-02 at 22:13:27
Technically, anything can be wrong. But why would you publish a book that is wrong in the first place? The amount of resources to put into them is too much. Then you gonna be corrected by someone else, and your whole books are now rendered worthless.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Tango on 2006-11-09 at 18:43:35
This site looks like a pointless spinoff to wikipedia.org. They should just concentrate on helping Wikipedia so that it can become better.