Archive:Why I contribute to CZ

Here is a collection of personal explanations of why we contribute to the Citizendium (CZ).

Please place testimonials in alphabetical order. Don't worry about repeating what others say; write what you think.

Howard C. Berkowitz

The goal is to create a public, living encyclopedia. Some of the key differences are, however, that we want civility and responsibility, and also -- very key -- to be friendly to experts rather than to drive them away. At the same time, we understand that academic expertise is not the be-all and end-all to knowledge. When the tools are inadequate, one of the most exciting things is that toolmakers come together and try to decide what will improve the process (e.g., CZ Talk: Usability). Such a discussion and the associated experimentation accepts that ideas need testing and cannot be issued by fiat.

I've seen far too many Tragedies of the Commons, where a minority degraded a valued shared resource or made it useless. All too often, there is a brilliant new idea, shared effectively by the first generation working cooperatively but in a walled garden. If the resources can survive into a third generation, after the greedy and antisocial have done their damage, the right balance between structure and creativity might develop. CZ, while still feeling its way, is seeking that balance. The early, closed-community predecessors of the Internet were walled gardens, and this was true of the early World Wide Web; they were, if you will, not only village markets, but markets guarded only to the mutually committed villagers. The introduction of PCs in the early 1980s, the open-access Internet of the late 1980s, and some aspects of the loosely-defined Web 2.0, including The Other Place with respect to CZ, led to various levels of chaos and destroyed commons.

Among the most effective modern collaborations is the Internet Engineering Task Force, in which new ideas are welcome from anyone, as long as they are clearly articulated, or built together from fragments. At the same time, the informal motto of "We don't believe in kings, presidents, or voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code" allows many things to be offered in the bazaar, with consumer choice but also with buyer choice.

To start with, Citizendium does not allow anonymous posting. If you remember the early pre-AOL days of USENET and the Internet, things went downhill rapidly when anonymous flamers entered discourse. In that culture, when people took responsibility for their words, just as on the IETF mailing lists, much more got accomplished with much less flaming. The name derives from treating the participants as Citizens of a community, rather than a venue for the verbal equivalent of drive-by shootings. While things are still developing, there is a goal of responsible community governance.

Anyone can visit and read, but one must be a Citizen to add or change content. To become a Citizen, the basic requirement is to have a verifiable identity. With certain exceptions, such as articles that have reached a level of approval, editing is open to any citizen, and even approved articles have "Version 2" for new commentary and improvement.

Two other classes of Citizen, however, have additional responsibility. If the community is visualized as a bazaar of ideas, these classes of people are seen as wandering elders, advising and encouraging rather than ruling. The Constabulary has some of the functions of a Wikipedia Administrator, but is certainly not limited to pure enforcement of rules. Instead, the Constabulary is also charged with encouraging civility and trying to cool things before they break into full-fledged flaming.

Upper-case "E" Editors, however, are unique. An Editor not only has a verifiable identity, but verifiable credentials in a discipline. As a consequence, an Editor is empowered to make rulings, subject to checks and balances, in content disputes. I'm reminded of a time at Wikipedia, when I finally gave up on contributing on network engineering -- I had corrected, for the Nth time, the same error that came from the same wrong textbook. I gave a reference to the formal definition of the concept, in an IETF RFC. The anonymous writer claimed I had misunderstood it. I suggested that he read the list of coauthors of the cited RFC, of which I was the lead author, and it could even be verified, in archives, that I had written the particular definition. Essentially, I was told that expertise was irrelevant, resistance was futile, and I would be assimilated.

Another very nice consequence of non-anonymity is that not every word and phrase needs to be sourced, as long as it gets review. This allows the convenience of writing from experience and things well-known in a discipline. It also provides the potential for better writing; I do like being able to use metaphors and humor.

At Citizendium, for example, I'm an Editor for the Computers, Engineering, and Military Workgroups, although an active participant in others. Some of the most satisfying roles for an Editor is mentoring rather than right-wrong; I had some satisfaction this morning of getting two subspecialists to be aware of one another. They can deal with the mathematics of cryptographic algorithms, which I can "sort of follow" but am more skilled in integrating them into a broader context. So, if they start collaborating, I can drop back to a "big picture" role.

This isn't to say that I don't write a lot of original content, and desperately seek review and commentary. The biggest problem is relatively small size.

Incidentally, for the Isaac Asimov fans, is it a coincidence that the project is run by the Citizendium Foundation?

Milton Beychok

I joined Wikipedia because I wanted to give back some of my experience and knowledge of Chemical Engineering. I left Wikipedia to join Citizendium primarily because of the rampant vandalism by children and others on Wikipedia, and because I grew tired of the revisions of my contributions by people who thought they were knowledgeable of a subject when they were patently not knowledgeable and who refused to be reasonable in their discussions. It reached the point where almost all of my time was being spent on reverting vandalism and with trying to maintain the integrity of what I had written. It became abundantly clear to me me that most of the people in Wikipedia had absolutely no respect for experience and for expertise. At that point, I left Wikipedia and joined Citizendium.

Nick Gardner

A long-retired economic adviser, I stumbled upon Citizendium, started tinkering with one of its articles, and became absorbed with the task of conveying the meaning of a maze of mathematics and charts to intelligent people who were familiar with neither. Finding myself in largely unoccupied territory, I then rambled around, starting an article here and there and waiting expectantly for expressions of dissent or agreement from the dozen or two people listed as economics authors. Getting no response from them or anyone else, I think I would have given up had it not been for some words of interest and encouragement from Martin Baldwin-Edwards. (By this time I had already come to believe –for reasons that I shall explain - that I had been writing stuff that people who read it would find interesting and useful.) Martin had proposed a prioritised programme of work to fill in the gaps in CZs coverage of economics, and I set myself to work on that programme. I then found that there had been many advances in economics since I had last tried to keep abreast of it , and I started getting a lot of satisfaction from a fresh learning experience. I still am. But all of this is perhaps too personal to me to be of interest to others, so I shall turn to my reason for believing in the value of citizendium.

Like many another working economist, I had become aware of the view among intelligent and well-educated “laymen” that economists were incapable of agreeing upon anything, had lost contact with reality, and were given to delusions of superior understanding of questions that were really only a matter of commonsense. I had also become aware that, although there was more than a grain of truth in that view of the practice of economics, much of the commonsense DIY economics of those intelligent laymen was sadly mistaken – with sometimes damaging consequences to them and others. So there – I thought – was a task worth undertaking: to find, understand and explain those developments of economic theory that were firmly connected to reality by good empirical evidence, as well as explaining some of the apparently promising ideas that had not yet attained that status. I was convinced that it had to be done without using the charts and higher mathematics which are the tools of the academic economist’s trade (and which the academics are prone to display to impress their readers), and without burdening the reader with a lot of inessential intellectual history, so I adopted the practice of consigning all of that stuff to subpages (where it might help economics students to impress their tutors). In that way I hoped to avoid some of the manifest shortcomings of the Wikipedia treatment of economics.

So I value Citizendium for letting me do those things, but mainly because I see others taking the same approach to other subjects – often to very impressive effect. It is a matter of great regret to me that I have not been able to provoke lively discussions with fellow-economists, and I still yearn for the development of a collegiate process of generating articles - but maybe that will come in time.

Sandy Harris

I wandered in more-or-less accidentally. I've been fairly heavily involved in the travel guide wiki Wikitravel for some time and sometimes contribute to Sensei's Library [1] the Wiki about the game of Go, and on Wikigogy [2], the Wiki for English language teachers.

As for WP, I read it moderately often, usually either because a web search turned up a WP page or someone cited one in email. I almost never go there directly to look for something, and almost never contribute there, though I've had an account for some years. Part of that is because I'm in China and the Great Firewall often blocks WP. Part of it is that I just never feel inspired there. On Wikitravel I feel I understand the policies and know where I can contribute something unique. On WP, I've never felt that.

I heard about CZ somewhere, perhaps Slashdot?, and some of the ideas seemed interesting. I wandered over to have a look, saw things I could fix and gaps that needed filling, so here I am. I'm not certain I understand all the policies or all the mechanisms (like Related pages) yet, but I am getting things done and the discussions, if sometimes heated, are usually both civil and productive and fairly often interesting.

By the way, there is a WT page Cooperating with Citizendium. Sandy Harris 08:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jackson

I contribute to make information available, particularly on points where people are often misinformed, and particularly on Buddhism. I left Wikipedia because it has no effective procedure for enforcing its neutrality policy. I'm new here so it remains to be seen whether this is better. Peter Jackson 09:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Dmitrii Kouznetsov

I contribute because it is way to establish the definitions of the terms we are use. All the deductions and pics may be considered as justifications of the definitions. Unfortunately, right now I see the serious problem with images: even the formulas do not load. I hope it is temporally. Dmitrii Kouznetsov 07:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Gareth Leng

I contribute to Citizendium mainly because, as a public funded scientist, I consider it important that I do my bit to contribute to the public understanding of science. But it's a two-way thing, while I try to get across the way that scientists think, engaging in collaborative writing like this helps me think more clearly and express myself more clearly. It's also an opportunity to pursue "hobby" subjects in a focussed way - since I started on Citizendium, I've found developing articles on Edinburgh a lot of fun -learning things I'm glad I've learnt. It's a good community - it's good to work with people who want to do this, rather than people who have to do this.Gareth Leng 09:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Mietchen

Being a scientist, I use Citizendium mainly to keep track of the literature and other interesting links relevant to my research, and I appreciate doing so in concert with other people with overlapping interests who use their real names and identifiy their areas of expertise. Though I do not see Citizendium as an online encyclopedia yet (due to lack of coverage), I think it is well-structured to become one, and thus it has the potential to provide what most other social bookmarking tools lack: context. More details on my view of Citizendium's place in the world of scholarly communcation can be found in an essay I recently wrote. --Daniel Mietchen 13:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Tom Morris

I write for Citizendium because it's fun. The real name policy and the Constabulary allow me to collaborate on articles without trolls and drama. It's enjoyable to be able to help start an encyclopedia from a blank slate, having learned from the experiences of Wikipedia. --Tom Morris 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

I started the Citizendium partly in order to give the world a better alternative to Wikipedia, but to put it positively, because I saw an enormous and unexploited opportunity to bring everyone together to create a truly high-quality free reference resource. (For more in this vein, see CZ:Why Citizendium?)

But why do I continue to lead and contribute to CZ? I believe in this project. We are approaching 10,000 articles, which I believe will be a psychologically important milestone. Our articles tend to be substantial, well-written, and, when not actually authoritative, well on their way to being so. We have a robust community of self-starting intellectuals, independent thinkers who are "early adopters." I am especially proud of the fact that, with a few exceptions aside, we are able to work together as colleagues, and this in spite of the fact that no one invited us specifically; we personally chose to learn about the website and then participate. It is a testiment to what is possible, that we can work together, experts and the general public working shoulder-to-shoulder, as well as we do. But CZ is what it is not because I or anyone planned it, but because of the very laudable individual initiative of over a thousand contributors, and hundreds of regular contributors. It fills me with pride to think that we have shown the world that Web 2.0 with "gentle expert guidance," with "village elders wandering the bazaar," can actually be made to work, visionless naysayers aside.

CZ is continuing to grow steadily, and I still maintain that there will come a time, in the perhaps not-too-distant future, when we will reach a tipping point, and we will be flooded with a lot of new people who will make us grow much faster indeed. But the project even in its present state is worthwhile. Our articles tend to begin life at a high level of quality, and for the most part they steadily improve. We are approaching a point where we will actually be useful as a general information resource, and difficult for our detractors to ignore. Because we are strongly collaborative and are seriously committed to neutrality, we do have an excellent chance of becoming, after some more years (it is hard to say how long), the most reliable general information resource online, period--outshining Wikipedia, of course, but also Britannica and others as well. --Larry Sanger 18:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Domergue Sumien

I contribute to Citizendium:

• because quality prevails.
• because reliable information prevails.
• because users are friendly and polite: you always work better in a peaceful atmosphere.--Domergue Sumien 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ro Thorpe

When I was a teacher, students were welcome to question my statements, but I didn’t expect them to do so often. Of course I may be lying [citation needed]. Ro Thorpe 00:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Alexander Wiebel

Just one sentence that is on my user page since I joined: I contribute to the Citizendium to create a citeable online encyclopedia. -- Alexander Wiebel 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Paul Wormer

Maybe the more topical question is not: why did I start contributing to CZ?, but why do I keep on contributing to CZ?. My reasons to join CZ were the same as of many "citizens": a complete dissatisfaction with WP. My own problem with WP was not so much with vandalism, trolling, or sockpuppeting, but the impossibility of convincing non-experts of their mistaken views. I had not expected that because I strictly confined my WP contributions to maths and physics. But even so, I landed up in unpleasant quarrels about matrix-vector multiplication and the normalization of wave functions.

I have almost 25 years of experience with e-mail (as a heavy mainframe user I jumped on it when it was introduced in Europe as "EARN/BITNET" in the early eighties). This long experience has taught me that e-mail is a terribly bad medium for arguing/debating with people, it is written and read hastily and superficially. Yet, e-mail may arouse strong emotions among its participants. I found out during my days at WP—and to my regret also here at CZ—that the Web suffers the very same malady. So, we see here, too, that the arguing back and forth among people soon becomes prickly and easily leads to bitterness. In particular, I noticed that experts have difficulties to get their points across, here as well as at WP. In the past, this motivated several experts to say goodbye to CZ.

This brings me to the role of the experts (the editors). So far I have not seen that their function is anything more than ornamental; they may approve articles (which in practice means asking Matt to enter a green checkmark); they are not allowed to veto an article. Even after long and thorough explanations, an expert may not veto a single paragraph or sentence as long as his/her opponent declares that (s)he is not convinced. And again, convincing somebody by e-mail or on the Web is nearly impossible. Maybe, when the medium becomes more-dimensional (sound and picture added, not just written texts) this problem of mis-communication will be solved or at least alleviated, until that time I foresee problems with the retention of experts, both at CZ and WP.

To return to the two questions above: I started contributing to CZ in August 2007 because I like writing about science and its history. The reason I put my writings here is the hope that somebody may have some use for it. With regard to the second question: I still contribute to CZ because on the whole the atmosphere here is congenial and people are polite. I wrote almost 100 articles about miscellaneous subjects, see here, and about 60 about electromagnetism, see here. The edits made to these articles by other "citizens" were generally improvements. My only bad experience was when I tried to remove something from an article that I saw as scientific nonsense, bordering on superstition. This was the only time I did not reach an agreement about wording in a text and wished I could have vetoed a paragraph or two.

Eric Evers

Citizendium is an easy way for me to put some of my lecture notes onto a platform usable by all the students and teachers in the world. A Slash-dot item introduced me to citizendium.

Attribution == quote-ability 

Who could ask for anything more than a scholastically usable wikipedia.

Joshua Zambrano

I used to contribute to Wikipedia. I learned the rules, and was enthusiastic about the ideals it sought, of being NPOV, following the sources, etc. The problem was, I found out there was a lot of systemic abuse, and it was perpetuated by admins. While I appreciate Jimmy Wales' efforts to stop a cabal,[3][4] he has unfortunately been unsuccessful.

There is a group of users who remove controversy from pages like the Barack Obama, Global Warming, and Planned Parenthood pages, even when it's been there for years, as soon as the pages are newsworthy. They use a group of editors who, despite being outnumbered 3 or 4 to 1 (the actual ratios), will claim consensus supports them. They will revert those who try to stop the vandalism of removing the controversies, then play musical chairs by having each other revert, so they force other users to violate the 3RR rule to have them banned. This is just one of the tactics. They force their critics into being banned one after another. Scjessey at Wikipedia is just one of their members who has for years suffered slaps on the wrist for these actions, facing topic bans time and again, only to get them commuted for good behavior, and then participate in the activity all over again.

I got myself in trouble the last time trying to stop them from getting yet another person banned, and removing controversy that had been mentioned on the Planned Parenthood page for several years without change. As soon as controversy arose so Planned Parenthood controversy was in the news, they removed the whole section unilaterally, and kept reverting to keep it in place. I didn't even violate the 3RR rule either. I've gotten tired of Wikipedia, needless to say, and the blatant and shameless level of bias that takes over there.

I tried Conservapedia next, and was quickly put off by how much the bias swung the opposite way. Rather than bias from a liberal side, there it is from conservative, except there at least they don't really even make the pretense of free speech or opinion. While the dishonesty of bias was at least a little refreshing, I found I didn't fit too well there either, as I dislike bias for either side, and speak for a balanced, neutral point of view that emphasizes reliable sourcing and equal coverage of both sides for a fair and balanced perspective.

Then I went to SourceWatch. I was closest to settling down there, but they deleted an article of mine. I understand and was in agreement with their right to do so. Unlike the other 2, it was not out of bias, or heavy-handedness, merely that their goal for the site was not to cover all topics, but merely those within a narrow frame of focus. They did not want topics on politicians or politics in general, only on certain issues that fit their mission goals. I had no hard feelings, and respected their site's wishes, but it wasn't what I was looking for, and I didn't feel it would let me contribute to my maximum potential; and that the site stood no chance of being truly comprehensive in such a state.

So I did some research on wiki alternatives, and found Citizendium. By this time I pretty strongly dislike Wikipedia, and wouldn't mind seeing another website take up competition as primary online encyclopedia. Wikipedia's hidden bias makes me dislike them for the same reason I dislike dishonesty in general. I dislike seeing dishonesty reign and flourish; and would love to see an honest site do well instead. So for that goal, I work towards making Citizendium the best it can be, contributing not only myself, but hoping to help the site's structure and traffic so it can one day compete with the dishonest Wikipedia.

Also, I have a deep-seated need to help others and help good causes. Like I said, I really liked Wikipedia's original guidelines, and had it abided by them, would have loved to be a regular contributor. Unfortunately, it has given itself over completely to rampant bias. I like to help others and share my knowledge. I feel it's a gift given to me, and I want to change society and the world for the better. Maybe wikis are a way to do so for a time while I think of ways to spread the information even better. So long as the wiki does what is right though, and shares the information in a right way, I love to be able to help. I also have an innate need to solve problems and fix what's going wrong, so I seem to almost magnetically gravitate towards such situations.

--Joshua Zambrano 01:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)