CZ Talk:Why Citizendium?

Here's another page that could greatly benefit from some groovy formatting...anybody? --Larry Sanger 10:16, 22 February 2008 (CST)

I don't think this version of the article really argues the case forcefully enough. So I'm making a new version, below. --Larry Sanger 09:07, 27 February 2008 (CST)

New version

"What is the point of the Citizendium," you might ask, "when Wikipedia is so huge and of reasonably good quality? What advantages does the Citizendium have that other websites do not have already? Is there really a need for it?"

The point of the Citizendium can be summed up briefly and forcefully: there is a better way for humanity to come together to make an encyclopedia. If we can do better than Wikipedia--or more positively, if we can pioneer a more effective way to gather knowledge--then we should.

Is Wikipedia the best we can do?

In response to this, a critic might argue: but you can't do better than Wikipedia. It has millions of articles, it is ranked #8 in traffic, it has thousands of very active contributors, and Nature did a report saying the accuracy of its science articles was not far below that of Encyclopedia Britannica. As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

But to make our case, we don't have to say that Wikipedia is broken. While different Citizens have different views about Wikipedia's merits, we agree on one thing: we, humanity, can do better. But why think that the Citizendium can do better?

Wikipedia began small, creating about five million words in its first year; the Citizendium actually added more words in its first year than Wikipedia did.