How does Citizendium make itself different and prevent the kind of abuse Wikipedia is currently rife with?

For starters, they have:

• Disabled anonymous editing
• Require identification of editors' real life identity
• Credential verification (e.g. no more Essjays)

But then how can Citizendium prevent the kind of admin abuse currently occurring on Wikipedia? For instance, who get to have admin power, who get to ban users, BLP issues, who gets to decide on content disputes (which are inevitable)?

Just asking questions.

(Also one of the major barriers to Citizendium adoption is that more content is required to attract people - when you Google something nowadays Wikipedia is almost always in the top 10, and Citizendium is nowhere to be seen.)

The simple virtue of using a real name is enough to deter abuse in most cases. Any admin abuse would be tied to a real name, and that may affect things such as employment. Those using their real names have their reputations and possibly more at stake. Individuals using pseudonym have much more leeway to abuse their powers, since they could get away with it without having their real-life reputation tarnished. Citizendium has accountability.

Also, Citizendium only has six sysops:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Speci...ers&group=sysop

Here's a list of user groups and their technical abilities:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:ListGroupRights

Only sysops have the technical rights o block users.

Their block list is surprisingly short (compared to other wikis):

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Speci...ALog&type=block

Here are some policies regarding Citizendium's constables / moderators:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Constabulary

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Constabulary_Policy

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Constabu...king_Procedures



To be honest, Citizendium is dull. I created an article on the Netscape Navigator, and I became instantly bored. Nothing exciting or interesting happens at Citizendium. Citizendium doesn't offer anything to keep me interested. At least Wikipedia offers drama.

Yeah, drama. Sort of like Wikipedia as giant Totalitarian State run by anonymous nerds

"But, but, I'm a professor in that subject....."
"You are ob...solete!"

"But, but, I'm a librarian!"
"You are ob....solete!"



I think that's the interior of MiniTru

I think Citizendium's #1 Right Idea is requiring registration and sign-in to edit. That wipes out probably 90% of vandalism from the get-go.

The use of real names probably discourages editing. Something splitting the difference between Total Anonymity and having to personally sign every post is probably the correct answer.

They have bosses and banners just like any other website on the internet bigger than a personal blog (including, if I may add, this one...). That's completely normal and natural. I doubt there is a great difference in form between them and WP. Conflict is less there because use is less there, it's as simple as that.

I think the "experts" model, by this late date, may be proclaimed a failure. It looks like it should fly, but it doesn't. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is built like a bumblebee and buzzes along, six feet off the ground and in sometimes erratic directions. The model essentially works.

What I would like to see is Citizendium fold the tent and its editors join WP, if they haven't already. Fixing Wikipedia's deficiencies needs level-headed input.

t

I think when sane people flee an insane asylum, they have a tendency not to want to return.

I agree with you 110 percent here.

What I would like to see is a WP culture where Citizendium's expert editors can edit on WP in peace without being bothered by know-it-alls who don't actually know it all, and without having the articles damaged a few months later. What chance of that?