Yes, I have, and I support Larry Sanger's efforts generally, though I've been critical in the particulars in the past. Let a thousand flowers bloom. As I noted, there are also projects "from within" Wikipedia to provide a mechanism for fact-checking and indications by the community of confidence in particular articles. Here is where I think this project is different: * It's not a "fork" so much as a stable version: i.e., looking for mutualism, not parasitism. There are several efforts at making "stable" versions of Wikipedia, this is one of those, and one I think could be particularly successful. * One of the reasons I think it could be successful is that it is modest in scope. Nupedia and later attempts failed, I think, to gather a critical mass of well-known, "credentialed" academic folks in any one area. If we can do that here, within the more limited realm of Internet Studies / CMC / HCI, we would be far ahead of the game. I would venture to claim that a good number of the most well-known people in this area follow this list. * Another is that I am not hoping to create a heavy infrastructure. I want to apply existing "technologies" of peer review to the resource. Again, I am thinking the lighter the better. Any heavy editing would continue to occur on Wikipedia proper, but the certified versions would be kept segmented (with the appropriate links back to Wikipedia for current versions). I'm a small thinker! If this can work in the limited way suggested, it can serve as a model for others to do the same in their own fields. - Alex On 9/21/06, paolo massa <massa@itc.it> wrote:
I guess you have heard of the recently launched Citizendium. See "New Citizendium to correct Wikipedia's wrongs?" at http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060919-7775.html
How does your idea relates to Citizendium?
<snip> -- // // This email is // [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded. // [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing. // // Alexander C. Halavais // Social Architect // http://alex.halavais.net //