What is Digg?72 Comments
- cvp1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+83Will I get modded down for saying that the name will kill the project? Let's see...
The name will kill it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+53I'm waiting for Politicipedia: Only anonymous disclosure of sensititve and embarassing government documents will be allowed.
- goat77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+42AKA shutdownbythegovernmentinstantlypedia.
- invader, on 10/12/2007, -0/+37the NSA will move in next door to the data center
- isemism, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31You shoudnt get modded down for bearing the painful and unfortunate truth.
- darkyoshi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27Citizendium - The free encyclopedia that only members of the upper class can edit.
- BillyEveryteen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Port A.K.A. copy/paste.
- honkyman5000, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork
- NinjAlt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Maybe because you included #wikiciti in the url, had a stupid title, and bad description?
- Loie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Your title and description was weak, try to write it like a newspaper headline and people who watch Digg Spy all day (like me, at work anyway) will notice it more....
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14"The whole point is that everybody on Wikipedia is equal"
Exactly. And that's it's major flaw.
If you want to edit an article on quantum chromodynamics, you are on equal grounds with with someone who has a post-doc in the field and 20 years experience.
If you want to edit an article on Catholocism, you are on equal grounds with scholars who know the Catechism like the back of their hand.
If you wanted to edit an article on the Nixon Administration, you are on equal grounds with historians and experts who voted during that era.
And so while someone else definitely knows more about these subjects that you, you could walk in, edit the article, faslely claim to be an expert, and suddenly you can easily convince the majority that you are right and your edits will hold. This process does not create good articles. - nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Non-geeks are just starting to discover Wikipedia's greatness. This sounds like a good project but the name is terrible and especially for a site like this forking is not going to be good for either of them. I wish them the best of luck though.
- Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9uncyclopedia is as accurate as a majority of unintellegent flying office monkeys with macbooks
- phatalbert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8And wikipedia relies on people being fundamentally decent human beings who will not pretend to be experts when they are not. The point is, there shouldn't be many people who are like that and will edit a topic they know little or nothing about.
- AssProphet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Bad title
- please don't complain about 'dupes' of your inadequate submissions - Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@ywong137
You're right that WP is pretty good. But it's also a snarled mess. Ever done serious work there in a subject you know well, and seen half of it disappeared by argumentative no-nothings? Now imagine having someone with expertise who can arbitrate disagreements in a given subject area. Call them a facilitator, whatever: the point is they know about scholarship and what qualifies as good argumentation.
The experiment's worth doing. Sanger's doing it. - iamexcite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spork
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8I don't know about you, but this guy sounds like he's just whining because he doesn't like how democracy is messy. He's all like, "I have TRIED to help Jimmy Wales make Wikipedia a better place," and complains that the community has abuse and doesn't self-police despite how it's "supposed to." News flash: Wikipedia is an amazing success in terms of accuracy and breadth, and it's there's going to be abuse and mess and imperfect self-policing so long any democracy ever exists. I'm a big elitist myself, but putting Wikipedia into the hands of experts isn't going to make it better.
- nunofgs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I like that their notion of "humanity" is an elite group of people, aka, "experts"
- Twango, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@pix869runescape:
Wikipedia may *help* you with papers, but most college profs won't accept it as a reliable citation source. Because the article might be excellent, and the one right next to it might *sound* good but be full of complete BS.
It's a great way to find out quickly about a subject, to get the outline. But down in the nitty gritty, where researchers spend their lifetimes, there's a lot of noise. And, so far, WP hasn't found a way to fix that. - judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This is silly, if you take the content and reuse it from wikipedia, the derivative work must also be licensed under the GFDL. If this Citizendium ever takes off and creates anything of quality it can immediately be reintegrated back into wikipedia, and it will be. So, I don't know how they are going to get any funding, but if they hire people to go through wikipedia's articles and find mistakes, from wikipedia's perspective that is fantastic! We would start a reintegration project immediately most likely.
I doubt that will happen though, because that takes money, and I don't really understand where that money is coming from. - BillyEveryteen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Haha, yeah, that has got to be the worst title I've seen on Digg.
- scott1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This sounds like nuepedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nupedia
and it faild
BTW this site is better and more accurate then wikipedia:
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page - AM088, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And won't they have to pay the "experts"?
- oodja, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Splitters!"
- Tyr7BE, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"I know for a fact Wikipedia has helped me with many a paper :) and there didn't seem to be much wrong with it. (Sure, there is the possibility someone was having a bit of fun, but no problems really arose when I used it)."
Indeed. When I was going through school to be an engineer, there were a lot of classes where the prof or whomever was writing up the notes just plain didn't have a clue about how the human mind works. Notes were frequently convoluted and disorganized, and often times complex material would be just stated, with no supporting evidence or further explanation. Enter Wikipedia. It has been the perfect companion for someone going through school as a computer engineer. While the material is perhaps a bit thin to act as a primary reference for this kind of topic, it makes an outstanding supplementary source for cases where you need a bit more explanation. I never once found a contradiction, and it helped me better understand a significant part of my field. - Lasker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Acapedia" would be a better name.
- gamerzworld, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Two days later: Some one has revived the Wikipedia old ways.
- MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2it's an inner party thing
- PIX869runescape, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7It all seems wildly unnecessary. I know for a fact Wikipedia has helped me with many a paper :) and there didn't seem to be much wrong with it. (Sure, there is the possibility someone was having a bit of fun, but no problems really arose when I used it).
This came across as a bit arrogant:
"Humanity can do better".
Why this would be needed is beyond me -- isn't this why we have google?
All the luck to them, anyway. - fredricko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Also, if you actually read the page it implies that Wikipedia is still going to exist and people will still be able to add and update Wiki articles.
http://citizendium.org/#progressive_fork - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope they reconsider the name. It doesn't have the same buzz that wikipedia has to it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You realize that's what nupedia was, right? Wikipedia's precursor. And it failed. Larry just wants to try and capitalize on Wikipedias success and bring back nupedia from the dead.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hope not! Mediawiki should be able to handle everything they require from the sounds of it.
- xpaladin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why not just call it "Encarta" and get it over with. Heh.
- toxicredm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3And everyone thought Wikipedia was a great name the first time they saw it?
- Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wiki is good for technical definitions, examples and general information that isn't ideological in nature. In other cases wikipedia is seen as a tool and weapon by far left and far right people and organizations who generally say "published information. Stfu" and piss along ruining articles without getting banned. I think the idea of it being moderated by highly educated and "real" people will make the wiki project be more about quility information and respectful debate over content. If you want to add something debate it, show some credentials... anonymous editing has failed in my opinion
Needs a new name though. - umrgregg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Billy, do you ever monitor DiggSpy? His sucks, but man, it's not the worst.
- farm3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What intersts me is the definition of "direction".
- digjedi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm surprised people are put off by the name of the site... and "Wikipedia" is not strange? The new site will have to grow to a certain size before anyone will use it (i.e. if not enough information available), but if it can grow large enough I believe it has a good chance.
Probably a comment to be mod down, but seriously, no one I know uses Wikipedia as a knowledge source. Personally I've tried a couple times to do really research on it and find entries made by some 14 yr with 30% of the information wrong or a entries littered with strange comments "Billy was here". Good stuff. - JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm quite serious in saying that clownpenis.fart would be a better name as far as marketing goes. They couldn't have made a worse name choice without randomly picking letters and numbers.
- inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So, instead of letting people add to articles, and then have it erased by the self-proclaimed elite of wikipedia, he'll start a project where he gets to pick the elite that are supposed to edit the encyclopedia, but will forget their duties and be inaccessible for long periods at a time?
- AM088, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I see you haven't used Wikipedia back when it was ugly...
Although I agree that this what's-it-called is uglier than I would have expected - razei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I don't quite understand; it's similair to Wikipedia, but editor controlled? If so, what's the point?
- judsond, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28software_development%29
Wikipedia is free content, licensed under the GFDL. Anyone can take the content of the encyclopedia and use it according to that license. This plan is not something the Wikimedia Foundation is doing, wikipedia isn't going anywhere. - codeblind, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2They are forking the Wikipedia project, but have no plans to fork Mediawiki, correct?
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The point is, there shouldn't be many people who are like that and will edit a topic they know little or nothing about."
There shouldn't be many, but there are enough to create real problems for articles' integrity. Especially in controversial topics like politics or religion. - fredricko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Quote from the page:
"We will begin with all of Wikipedia's articles, so that the Citizendium will begin as, simply, a mirror of Wikipedia. "
So basically, Wikipedia with a new name, and a different set of rules. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It'll never catch on. The whole problem with editors is that they have inherent biases, as hard as they may try to ignore them. Not to mention that editors will never be able to "vouchsafe" the quantity of articles that a wikipedia-size database is expected to create. Plus the whole thing that public input will be of secondary importance means the whole thing will never catch on with the public, who would rather stick with something in which they can have a tangible impact - wikipedia. If this thing does progress, it'll only be popular among a rather small subset of academics, id guess. And that in itself creates a great big bias in whatever articles they put out, for good or worse.
- darkyoshi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That orange bar on the side proves that Citizendium will be ugly. I know I wouldn't use it if it looked like that.
-
Show 51 - 72 of 72 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is