"Oh, I thought Citizen-dum was part of the Wikimedia group."

[reddragdiva]

Yay for press calls. I sometimes wonder if I'm the only English Wikipedia press contact outside the US who answers their phone.

Citizendium is the latest announcementware from Larry Sanger, famed cofounder of Wikipedia. The idea is to start a new expert-friendly Wikipedia fork. We'll see what goes live on September 30th.

ciphergoth thinks this is an idea there is a need for — he has no wish to dive into the Wikipedia editing brawl. Lots of people don't have the patience or stomach to be required to work productively with complete idiots, which is a non-optional skill on Wikipedia, and I wouldn't expect them to. Politics starts at two people; when you have a few thousand in one place, you're going to get your skills at working with others tested to the utmost.

He is also convinced this is why Wikipedia has its much-alleged but seldom substantiated anti-expert bias. I'm not at all convinced this is a problem for experts as much as it is a problem for people. It fails to explain how Wikipedia has lots of academic experts — you and I know them personally. Unless expert-neutral (which I think is more the case) is the same as "anti-expert."

I've also copy-edited way too much Wikipedia writing from experts who know a thousand times more than me about the topic but can't write for shit, or who consider themselves above listing references. And scream when I touch their golden prose.

A volunteer enterprise (Citizendium isn't paying either) needs more than experts. Wikipedia gets people willing to do the ridiculously boring jobs because they believe in the project and doing the shitwork is a way they can help it. Puffing Billy has volunteers warming up the engine every morning at 3am! Reliably! People volunteer to do stuff that inspired socialist revolution when it was a paid job! What's the volunteer payoff doing the shitwork for a project whose mission statement is that you suck?

I predict Citizendium — if it ever gets past vapourware — will primarily attract those experts who don't like playing well with others. I'm sure it'll be most interesting to watch.

(What I'd like to see is somewhere encouraging this variety of expert to put up quality text under a GFDL-compatible licence which Wikipedia could then use, or not. I'm not sure what would work, or how it would somehow attract less dickheads than Wikipedia presently attracts, or why qualified expert dickheads would somehow be better to volunteer to work with than regular dickheads.)

Comments

[steer.livejournal.com]

I doubt it will make anything of a splash. Wikipedia is still at the stage where people are going "There's this new and great thing called Wikipedia" -- sure, not people who are techies in the know -- but let's face it the Wikipedia project isn't short of clued up techie types (it's already got the most reliable general science and maths coverage I know of) it's short of people interested in the humanities.

Given the choice between "You can edit this well-known thing and make a difference right now" or "You can fiddle around with something called a fork of something you've not heard of and then have some upper echelon person OK your change or not" well, I think the new people will know which they're going to go with. What kind of person would be attracted to Citizendium versus Wikipedia? I guess, the informed geek with a particular bias to a certain type of management structure (not in short supply on wikipedia in any case).

On the other hand, maybe Larry will be good enough to donate the servers to wikipedia when it goes titsup.

[reddragdiva]

Not that I had Richard Clegg, Ph. D in mind at all when I wrote the above.

[steer.livejournal.com]

(Grin) I should find more time for wikipedia. I've mostly just been tidying up the entries I watch of late rather than actually contributing content. I think trying to understant the battles of Clive of India sapped my will to live. (You fucking chopsy bugger Clive, you just spent years fighting ANYONE you could find on the subcontinent, I can't even keep all the battles in order).

The maths part of wikipedia are interesting because of the tension between those who say "it's incomprehensible" and those who say "it's incredibly useful". I don't think you're ever going to write an article on, say, The Sherman-Morrison Formula which is comprehensible without at least A-level maths. There are other articles which would not be comprehensible to someone without at least a degree in maths. Mathematics is like that though. To me that page on the S-M formula was a godsend because it's not *that* widely known but it is a beautifully clear exposition.

[reddragdiva]

It's like that with obscure bits of computer guff. One ends up with intros that start with a string of comma phrases. "In computing, in software engineering, in left-handed franistans, in the sub-globular sodomite pattern, the Mangle-Brangle-Axial-matic-Geeble-Geep is ..."

[steer.livejournal.com]

*Grin* I guess one could start "To understand the Mangle-Brangle-Axial-matic-Geeble-Geep first train for four years in computing. Done that? Good. Now, in software engineering, in left-handed franistans, in the sub-globular sodomite pattern..."

There was an idea mooted on a page which I have since lost which was to simply add "prerequisite" pages to the start of maths pages. "Maneville-Pomeau map: prerequisites: Chaos theory, non-linear algebra". At least then people would know what the needed to learn before they understood the page. It might boil down to a "tis/tisn't" battle though.

[reddragdiva]

You could do it with horrible template box things on the side. Ew.

sub-globular sodomite patterns

[sheridanwilde.livejournal.com]

Oh, but that's hardly encyclopaediac, is it?

On the prerequisite idea - isn't that roughly covered by the wikilinks in the introductory paragraphs of said advanced entry?

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[steer.livejournal.com]

Hmm... it would be helpful to the reader's understanding. Having a hyperlink to another page isn't something paper encyclopedias did.

To be clear I am not necessarily sold on the idea but it could be useful.

On the prerequisite idea - isn't that roughly covered by the wikilinks in the introductory paragraphs of said advanced entry?

For an example, I consider this a well-written introduction to "Eigenvalue, eigenvector and eigenspace."

--
In mathematics, an eigenvector of a *transformation* is a *non-null* *vector* whose direction is unchanged by that transformation. The factor by which the magnitude is *scaled* is called the eigenvalue (help·info) of that vector. (See Fig. 1.) Often, a transformation is completely described by its eigenvalues and eigenvectors. An eigenspace is a *set* of eigenvectors with a common eigenvalue.

These concepts play a major role in several branches of both *pure* and *applied mathematics* — appearing prominently in *linear algebra*, *functional analysis*, and to a lesser extent in *nonlinear* situations.
--

The *s indicate links. Would you guess from that intro that the topics to understand beforehand were linear algebra, vectors and matrices.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[reddragdiva]

I'd start it "In *mathematics*, in *linear algebra*, an eigenvector of ..." Which is slightly clumsy and not quite grammatical, but I'd put it that way and see if it stayed.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[steer.livejournal.com]

Ah... but that would be untrue... or rather like saying, "In the animal kingdom, in zooology, an elephant is..."

That definition of eigenvector is used in many fields of mathematics but linear algebra is what you would study to understand them.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

The downside of that -- and I'll admit that I haven't looked at the article to check the targets of the hyperlinks -- is that "non-null" and "vector", for instance, are not two individual concepts that need to be understood, but rather "vector" and/or "non-null vector" are. I ready acknowledge that it's an incredibly minor nit to pick, but it's one of those things that narks me -- when a phrase is indicated as significant through use of a hyperlink, but the phrase as a whole can't be understood by following it.

Now, I presume *pure* above is actually in the Wiki as [[pure mathematics|pure]], which of course partially invalidates my point -- reducing it to a UI niggle rather than a problem with the definition.

Perhaps a See Also: line at the top would be useful in addition to the references at the bottom; something like:

---
Eigenvalue
From Drunkopedia, the drunken witterings of baljemmett
Related to: linear algebra, vectors, matrices

In mathematics, an eigenvalue is something that I learned about at A level and promptly forgot when I naffed off down the pub.
---

Alternatively, just creative rewording of reddragdiva's suggestion; "In the linear algebra field of mathematics, an eigenvector..." -- but that gets increasingly unwieldly when you have many prerequisites, and is also harder to parse at first sight. It's a tough one, and I suppose instruction could be drawn from the lack of similar pointers in printed encyclopaedias -- if someone's going to be looking it up, they can be assumed to either be familiar with the field or intelligent enough to glark from context/important-sounding words (i.e. hyperlinks) what they need to look up.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[steer.livejournal.com]

I guess I should have put in what the article links to. non-null actually links to null vector -- a useful link since someone reading might well understand vector but not null vector. Transformation links to linear transformation, pure links to pure mathematics and scaled links to scale factor. In other words, the fault is mine for being hasty in copying it down.

Indeed the "related to" is pretty much what I meant by the "prerequisites".

"In the linear algebra field of mathematics, an eigenvector..."

My problem with this is that (as a nit-picking mathematician) the definition of eigenvector holds in any field of mathematics but linear algebra is the best field to learn to grok it in its entirity.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[reddragdiva]

"My problem with this is that (as a nit-picking mathematician)"

And thus the expert<->copy-editor dialectic is summarised.

Re: sub-globular sodomite patterns

[reddragdiva]

Yeah, hence my example of narrowing the field one comma phrase at a time. That's how I contextualise severely specialised articles in an intro para. Most people do something similar.

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

In the sub-globular sodomite pattern? Pfft, the Mangle-Brandle-Axial-matic-Geeble-Geep is only useful when dealing with super-globular patterns, as any fule kno. If that's the best Wikipedia can do, no wonder people are saying "fork it!"

Please don't hurt me... It's been a long day.

[reddragdiva]

Do you have your credentials to hand, citizen Prospective Editor?

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

I have a Ph.D in Arse-Elbow Differentiation from the University of Bums on Seats (http://www.cynicalbastards.com/ubs/), if that counts for anything?

[steer.livejournal.com]

Bums on seats - ha! a proper university has Chairs on chairs -- they just dress like bums.

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

I'd rather just start "In the sub-globular sodomite pattern" and let people click the link to find out what one of those is...

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

There's your answer to how well Citizendum has attracted contributors (https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2006-September/thread.html)

Actually I now think that my ideas on how you could make an improved Wikipedia are very different from Sanger's - I want more technology and fewer rules - and that I should just code the damn thing and see who takes an interest. But not until after December 11 (http://lacs.uni.lu/fse2007/).

[reddragdiva]

That's what makes me fear it's doomed before it could possibly get started: the general discussion list has started moderated without active moderators.

I'm wondering how long an expert would last if Sanger thought he was smarter than him.

[reddragdiva]

OK, the list has moderators and is taking off. So far it's all talk until a product shows up, of course.

[reddragdiva]

And now the list has so many contributions they're seriously considering having a moderator pick'n'choose messages to go to the list. The "general discussion" list.

?!

[steer.livejournal.com]

Critique (from Boing Boing so you probably saw it)

http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/18/larry_sanger_citizendium_and_the_problem_of_expertise.php

[reddragdiva]

Yeah. It makes me wonder how Sanger has managed in academia never, ever to meet people who are clearly experts but who are also clearly dickheads no sane person would ever want to work with a second longer than necessary.