Silver-level article

Difference between revisions of "Citizendium"

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (an example of how slow the Citizendium process is.)
Line 104: Line 104:
 
* [[Unidentified flying object]]s.<ref>[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=UFO&oldid=100691506]</ref> The article treats two scientific classification schemes of UFOs: Hynek's and Vallee's. The first scheme distinguishes Encounters of the First through the Fourth Kind. The second separates Poltergeist Activity from Near Death and Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs).   
 
* [[Unidentified flying object]]s.<ref>[http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=UFO&oldid=100691506]</ref> The article treats two scientific classification schemes of UFOs: Hynek's and Vallee's. The first scheme distinguishes Encounters of the First through the Fourth Kind. The second separates Poltergeist Activity from Near Death and Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs).   
  
−
When errors are detected, more often than not they are detected by people outside of the project, bringing into question how qualified these CZ experts are<ref>http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/hagiography-and-citizendium/</ref> and how well CZ's expert oversight procedure works at all<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HaeB/Some_notes_on_Citizendium</ref>.
+
When errors are detected, more often than not they are detected by people outside of the project, bringing into question how qualified these CZ experts are<ref>http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/hagiography-and-citizendium/</ref> and how well CZ's expert oversight procedure works at all<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HaeB/Some_notes_on_Citizendium</ref>. An example of this, is the article on Jupiter which claims it has a surface - Jupiter is in fact a gas giant which doesn't have a known surface. The error has remained uncorrected for over three years,<ref>http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Jupiter_%28planet%29&diff=prev&oldid=100220299 Citizendium article on Jupiter</ref> despite complaints mailed to the project over it.
  
 
===Scientology===
 
===Scientology===

Revision as of 16:53, 30 July 2010

Their logo as of July 2010. Hey, GMail was "beta" for five years.

Citizendium ("CZ") was a pretender to the throne of Wikipedia as a free internet-based encyclopedia project.[1] It was founded by Wikipedia's self-proclaimed co-founder Larry Sanger to remedy the perception that Wikipedia ("the encyclopedia any teenager can vandalize") is written by too many non-experts, reducing its reliability in the eyes of its detractors. Citizendium claims to boost its reliability by having its articles vetted by experts. Contributors are required to use their real names and give their credentials for additional accountability.

Articles are divided into "workgroups" such as history, engineering, biology, and music. There is also a workgroup on "healing arts," which is Citizendium's term for alternative medicine[2] (separate from the workgroup on "health sciences", i.e., medical treatment that actually works). This means that alternative medicine practitioners can manage articles in their "fields" largely on their own terms — they can remove unwanted criticism and cherry pick their own references. This led to CZ's first major shark-jumping, when a ludicrous puff piece on homeopathy was featured on the main page. Citizendium has gained something of a reputation for friendliness not just to alternative medicine but also to pseudoscience and fringe theories in general.

From lofty ambitions and a hugely publicized start, participation in the project has steadily declined from a peak in early 2008 to a small core of 20-25 regulars and only 80 people bothering to make a single edit per month. As of June 2010 the number of users making 1, 20 or 100 edits per month all were at their lowest point since the project went public in March 2007,[3] and 75% of edits were made by just 10 people.

Impetus and ambitions

The project was founded in 2006 to create a "new compendium of knowledge" based on the contributions of "intellectuals," defined as "educated, thinking people who read about science or ideas regularly."[4] The ambition was to "unseat Wikipedia as the go-to destination for general information online".[5] It was launched with great fanfare, extensive press coverage and much newspaper and blogosphere opinionation.[6]

Citizendium began its closed pilot phase in late 2006 and went public on March 27, 2007.[7] It started as a fork of the English Wikipedia, meaning it copied numerous Wikipedia articles under the terms of the GFDL — similar to how Wikipedia was given a "kickstart" by some out-of-copyright established encyclopedias. Sanger soon decided that original content was the only way to get participation, and deleted all Wikipedia-sourced articles that had not been worked on locally.

Growth and decline

Sanger's prognosis compared to reality
The rate of the creation of articles at Citizendium
The number of articles (approved, drafts and otherwise) at Citizendium Nov 2006- Feb 2010

Citizendium is moribund at best.

Sanger stated in October 2007 that he expected "an explosion of growth,"[8] and that he expected the project to triple, or at least double, in size annually.

In the years following, there have been no signs of accelerated growth. The number of active contributors grew to a peak around April 2008 but has declined steadily since. Word count added per day has varied over the range 3,000-7,700 in 2010. The article creation rate has slowly increased from around 14/day in late 2007 to around 18-20/day in 2010, but the word count per article has correspondingly gone down, with much of the increase being very short stubs.[9] Thus, the median length of Citizendium articles has declined from 468 words in October 2007 to just 149 words (roughly the length of the paragraph you are now reading) in June 2010.[10] In June 2010 there were about 14,000 articles in the main space, less than 0.5% of the 3,300,000 articles at the English version of Wikipedia.

active authors, editors, etc. at Citizendium

As of June 2010 each month sees about 70-80 individuals making an edit to Citizendium, down from around 200 at the time of Sanger's "explosion of growth" statement.[11] Compare this to RationalWiki, where over 150 people make at least one edit in a given week. Or Wikipedia, with 153,727 in the thirty days prior to 16 April 2010.

Current state

The project has failed in every stated ambition. It is now dominated by a small core of 20 or so regulars with almost no new blood.

Dr Sanger is convinced that the failure of Citizendium is not due to his policies or the behaviour of himself or his "constables" (the wiki administrators[12]), but due to attacks from Wikipedia.[13]

Signing up to contribute

Citizendium calls its contributors "Citizens." They are divided into "authors" (hoi polloi) and "editors" (the experts) — using a distinction analogous to print publications. The class distinction is clear and comes from the top: if you're a mere "author", you're scum.[14] (As may be expected, this has left Citizendium a wiki of "editors" with no "authors" to supervise.[15]) This contrasts with Wikipedia, where everyone is an "editor". This sometimes leads to confusion when discussing Citizendium.


“”Join us! It's quick and easy!
—Citizendium Request Account (top of page)
“”Authors (i.e., most people): after submitting this form, a constable will review your information and likely reply within 24 hours (often much less)... [Use] the name on your driver's license or other identification card. First name (given name) and last name (family name). Use normal capitalization, punctuation, and spaces, e.g., John A. Doe. You may use middle names and initials if you wish. No pseudonyms: if you want to apply for a pseudonym, do not use this form. Instead, send your information to personnel@citizendium.org, addressed to the Chief Constable, explaining the reasons for your request. We grant pseudonyms only for very rare and exceptional reasons. Authors are required to provide only a statement about their personal interests and education, preferably a few hundred words, and not fewer than 50.
“”Editor applicants: fill out this form and include two further items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. Both of these additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page. If you lack a current CV, lists of publications or other such documents that establish your expertise may be suitable. When your editorship is approved, you'll receive an e-mail to enable you to log in at Special:Userlogin. If you're not approved as an editor, you might still be approved as an author.
—Citizendium Request Account (scroll down)

Larry Sanger and community management

“”That was about as assinine [sic] a performance I've seen outside of a chatroom. I won't point out the various examples of spuriousness but instead keep it to one observation: someone that inclined to perceive hostility where it isn't evident is not going to be a good community manager.
—Comment on Larry Sanger post[16]

Despite early claims that Citizendium would operate on an open "bazaar" model rather than a closed "cathedral" one,[4] Sanger kept Citizendium under firm control from early on. One jawdropping early move was to kill the groundswell of support and enthusiasm on the project mailing list, because people were using it as a ... mailing list. The traffic was too much for him personally, so he killed the momentum stone-dead, turned it into an announcements list and redirected discussion to a forum.[17] His active perception of the role of Editor-in-Chief (compared to Jimbo Wales' largely hands-off approach to Wikipedia) also put some contributors off.[18]

Sanger considers the opinions of authors (the generic casual contributor) worthless and is not subtle in saying so.[14] This has also repelled contributors.

When establishing Citizendium, Sanger announced that he would be resigning from the project as Editor-in-Chief after two or three years,[19][20] to demonstrate he would not be a "dictator for life", an allegation commonly made against rival Jimbo Wales.[21] In July 2009 he stepped down from active involvement,[22] to work on his already-moribund[23] WatchKnow educational video initiative.

He is still nominally in charge of Citizendium. When he tried to report Wikipedia to the FBI over "child pornography" (line art drawings of lolicon),[24] he used the official Citizendium blog[25] to link to his reply to Slashdot commenters,[26] suggesting he still considers Citizendium his personal site and bashing Wikipedia as part of the mission.

The concept of expertise on Citizendium

There's much to like in the idea of creating an environment that is welcoming to people who know what they're talking about, as compared with Wikipedia's grudging admission that "editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest."[27] But it didn't work out too well at Citizendium.

There's expertise and then there's certification as an expert, which is a social construct made of pieces of paper and accredited standards — and often enough, the two don't quite overlap. On the search for the former, Citizendium went for the latter.[28] Then it overbroadened its definitions.

An editor who is a civil engineer with experience in road building would also have authority over articles on biomedical engineering – it's all "engineering" to Citizendium. Likewise, a music editor would have authority over everything from plainchant to hip-hop.

Attracting and repelling academia

Wikipedia has plenty of academics and actual experts editing — one can hardly edit without bumping into someone who knows a hell of a lot more about a topic. It fails utterly, however, in keeping idiots out of the experts' faces.

So Citizendium promised they'd remedy this and attracted a good number of established experts (such as university professors) in its early days. But almost all have left — and it turned out that the people getting in the academics' faces were Dr. Sanger and his constables.[13] Heavy-handed tactics, meddling in article content, censoring user comments, bullying and harassment of academic users have been commonplace.[29] Others grew exasperated over Sanger's penchant for micromanagement[30] and inability to acknowledge areas he was not competent in [31] as well as (like Wikipedia) his insistence on accommodating fringe views in the name of "neutrality."

Sanger claims academic credentials, academic expertise, academic credibility and respect for and from academia, and loves the idea of academia[32] — but has never had an actual job in academia, having been employed by Nupedia then Wikipedia while still working on his doctorate. All his personal experience of academia is as a student, and he has no idea what actual working academics do for a living or how to work with them.[13] His personality (and the emulation of his worst behaviors by his acolytes) did the rest.

Crank magnet

Citizendium's "expert" approval is just as much a double-edged sword as is Wikipedia's open editing policy. The major downside to Citizendium's approach is that designated "experts" can take ownership of articles within their field. In some cases this is fine and combats the effect of Wikipedia's almost unguided editing that causes articles to degrade. But it also allows people of very dubious qualifications to obtain such ownership with relatively little opposition. Thus, the method lets supposed "experts" hijack pet articles and push their own point of view, making the articles as uncritical as possible of the topic at hand.

Whereas actual knowledgeable experts are more interested in their field itself than credentialism, cranks have no substance and so advance in the world by faking expertise and working for status and perceived credibility. This means cranks stay on a project that grants them status even as those of genuine expertise are driven out.

Citizendium's approval process means that once approved, an article is locked from further editing and all changes must be made to a "draft" version that is not presented to the public until it goes through the approval process again. And who controls the reapproval process? You guessed it – the same "experts" who approved the original article. This means that once a fringe enthusiast has managed to get an article approved in their preferred version, it is very difficult for reality-based individuals to undo the damage.

Citizendium's greatest pseudoscientific hits

The Citizendium process has been critiqued in detail since before the launch. The Citizens quite reasonably replied that the proof would be in the resulting product. Unfortunately, this did not turn out as well as they hoped.

It is certainly not the case that all, or even most, Citizendium contributors are cranks. In fact some of them have lamented the project's reputation for fringe topics and point out that it has driven away potential contributors.[33][34][35] But overall the project has been excessively tolerant, even deferential toward such individuals — while driving actual academics away — and far too much questionable material appears for a site that prides itself on being "authoritative, error-free, and well-written."[36][37]

Citizendium's horrific piece on homeopathy[38] was taken over by Dana Ullman, a long-known internet shill for pseudoscience who was banned from Wikipedia for disruptive advocacy.[39] According to Ullman this was at Sanger's personal invitation.[40] Likewise the article on chiropractic[41] is "owned" by D. Matt Innis, a practicing chiropractor and acupuncturist.[42] Both of these pseudoscience advocacy articles appear to be fully embraced by the Citizendium community. They are both marked as "approved" articles and the homeopathy advertisement — which Sanger referred to as "a fine article" [43] — was even used in January 2009 as a "featured article" on the site's main page.[44]

Some more examples of awful pro-pseudoscience articles:

  • Memory of Water — as per homeopathy claims above. Library scientist Walt Crawford criticized the article as "deeply disturbing."[45] CZ Physics/Chemistry editor Dr. Paul Wormer had pressed from early on for it not to be made of complete woo, and eventually succeeded.[46]
  • Pseudoscience, particularly the section under "Astrology."
  • Intelligent Design — a scary article, reminiscent of aSK.
  • Young earth creationism — heavily (and "expertly") edited by Conservapedia sysop RJJensen
  • Cold fusion – heavily biased, and edited by proponent and advocate Jed Rothwell.[47] Rothwell had been previously banned indefinitely from Wikipedia for constantly removing criticisms of cold fusion as a pseudoscience, using an army of sockpuppet accounts.[48]
  • Infant colic — relies on alternative and experimental medicine. Tone of article is dismissive of "scientific medicine."
  • Vertebral subluxation — scientifically unsound article, written mostly by an unpublished author without any verifiable medical background.
  • Apollo Moon landing hoax theory — Written by Luchezar Iliev Georgiev (former Wikipedia User:Лъчезар), who not only believes the moon landings were a hoax, but the entire Apollo program itself was a lie. The article was later reduced to a stub by other editors. "Lucho" has also obsessively spread his dementia anywhere they won't delete it on sight.[49][50] To its credit, Citizendium did eventually fix the article.
  • Alice Bailey — puff piece on the New Age author, relies heavily on her autobiography for sources eg. telepathic transmission of books, the so-called hidden "Masters of Wisdom", and assorted woo.
  • History of the United Kingdom — A conservative editor had rewritten British history by removing all mention of Labour governments from the timeline. The wandalism went uncorrected for over six months.[51]
  • Herding cats — an article worthy of Uncyclopedia.
  • Protoscience The works of Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin are treated on equal footing with the nonexistent substance/field/phenomenon/whatever-it-is Ormus: "Ormus is a protoscientific field of study within physics and chemistry. It has reached this level because the concept is defined on the basis of spectroscopical methods." The article on protoscience containing the woo paragraph had been sitting at CZ for over three years;[52] less than two weeks after the paragraph was signaled here at RW, it was deleted.[53] The Citizendium experts left untouched a rather odd reference to Thomas Kuhn. The Citizendium article refers by "Kuhn (1970)" to a 2003 student report that is in Dutch. The student report gives the correct reference to Kuhn's famous essay.[54]
  • A chemistry editor who requested deletion of an article about Ormus itself, that contained statements as: "But it (Ormus) can't be labelled as a pseudoscience, as it is defined in terms of conventional physical tests",[55] met great resistance of (non-chemistry) editors, although at the end of the day the article was deleted.
  • Unidentified flying objects.[56] The article treats two scientific classification schemes of UFOs: Hynek's and Vallee's. The first scheme distinguishes Encounters of the First through the Fourth Kind. The second separates Poltergeist Activity from Near Death and Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs).

When errors are detected, more often than not they are detected by people outside of the project, bringing into question how qualified these CZ experts are[57] and how well CZ's expert oversight procedure works at all[58]. An example of this, is the article on Jupiter which claims it has a surface - Jupiter is in fact a gas giant which doesn't have a known surface. The error has remained uncorrected for over three years,[59] despite complaints mailed to the project over it.

Scientology

The Scientology article is edited by at least two well known members of that organization. On 1 May 2007, the article "Scientology" was moved first to "Scientology (the philosophy)" then finally to Church of Scientology. The word "cult" was deleted as well as any mention of scientology being banned in a number of countries, and the term "adherent" replaced with "parishioners" by Terry E. Olsen. Olsen is the infamous usenet and Wikipedia editor known as "Terryeo".[60][61] Shortly afterwards Steven Ferry joined Citizendium. Ferry never declared his previous and active membership[62][63] in Scientology to the project, prior to editing and purging the article of criticisms.[64][65] Ferry was subsequently elected to the Citizendium Editorial Council unopposed in 2008,[66] leading to claims the project had been successfully infiltrated by the Church of Scientology.[67] Ferry ceased contributing in mid-2008 and the article was gradually cleaned up over the next two years.

Technical details

Citizendium has suffered repeated server outages since it was founded, often keeping the project off-line for hours at a time.[68][69][70][71][72] It's almost as unreliable as RationalWiki!

Citizendium defines itself so completely as the anti-Wikipedia that even technical decisions (such as using PostgreSQL rather than MySQL for the database — though not, of course, feeding back their changes so that other PostgreSQL users might benefit — and incompatible changes to the MediaWiki software) have been made only on the basis of being different from Wikimedia. It has recently been realised that forking when you haven't the technical resources is not such a good idea and that the software at least should be brought back to mainline.

Rearranging the deckchairs

A Citizendium Charter, which was meant to have been implemented within the first twelve months, is supposedly coming close to being finalized and adopted. The regulars hope this will get things going again — despite their strong resistance to change.[73] They expect approval of the Charter to bring a surge in activity to the site, as they can think of nothing else that will allow them to fix rules they know do not work.[74]

Almost every issue brought up on Citizendium is deferred or deflected with what amounts to "the Charter will save us". Not just site policy, but active users, press, even efforts at rewriting the help pages, are left hanging in hopes the Charter will fix everything. Every conflict, such as the cranks in the healing arts group or the monstrosity that is their homeopathy article (Dana Ullman remains active[75][76] in the supposedly more scientific new draft version, with every criticism being qualified as "skeptics say, skeptics think"), gets pushed back waiting on the Charter to show them the way.

But this magical Charter looks like something that has been going on for a long time, and there is no indication that it really is close to coming about. Almost a year after elections for the charter drafting committee, personal bickering between committee members is a regular feature in their discussion forum. The current draft[77] seems to violate every possible principle of parsimony and practicality. It literally contains more positions of authority than there are active editors on the project.

The punchline

Sanger offers consulting services as an expert in policy formation for online communities.[78]

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Their main page
  2. ↑ Citizendium:Healing Arts
  3. ↑ Citizendium:Statistics
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Toward a New Compendium of Knowledge (longer version) (Larry Sanger, 2006-09-15)
  5. ↑ Larry Sanger. "Co-Founder to Launch Edited Version of Wikipedia: Pilot Project for the Citizendium to Launch This Week", Citizendium.org, October 17, 2006.
  6. ↑ CZ:Press Coverage (archived)
  7. ↑ Citizendium Press Releases > Mar272007
  8. ↑ Larry Sanger: The Citizendium one year on: a strong start and an amazing future
  9. ↑ This started with a call for stubs in November 2007 and has continued since.
  10. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Statistics#Word_count
  11. ↑ CZ:Statistics, graph Editing users.png
  12. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Constable
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 University may be given the keys to Citizendium (comments) — quite vicious analysis in the story comments from academics burnt by Citizendium, frankly bizarre responses from Larry Sanger and senior Citizendium constables.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 http://daveydweeb.com/2007/02/07/citizendium-isnt-interested-in-your-opinion/
  15. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3299.msg31250.html#msg31250
  16. ↑ http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/20/larry_sanger_on_me_on_citizendium.php#141031
  17. ↑ Citizendium — A study in momentum killing (Terrell Russell, blog post, 2006-10-13)
  18. ↑ e.g., [1] "I can tell you in two words why it failed: Larry Sanger. I found I had moved from anarchy to absolute monarchy. After two or three encounters with Larry's autocratic rudeness, I departed."
  19. ↑ http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2007/02/citizendium.ars/3 'No dictator for life'
  20. ↑ http://news.softpedia.com/news/Wikipedia-Co-Founder-Ready-to-Launch-New-Project-120175.shtml
  21. ↑ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictator
  22. ↑ https://lists.purdue.edu/pipermail/citizendium-l/2009-July/001418.html
  23. ↑ Alexa rank for WatchKnow.org
  24. ↑ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/09/sanger_reports_wikimedia_to_the_fbi/
  25. ↑ http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=575
  26. ↑ http://www.larrysanger.org/ReplyToSlashdot.html
  27. ↑ Wikipedia:COI
  28. ↑ Larry Sanger, Citizendium, and the Problem of Expertise (Clay Shirky, Sep 2006)
  29. ↑ Wikipedia founder's scholarly web venture plays host to a war of words (Times Higher Education, 2009-01-22)
  30. ↑ ProfRAP, blog comment
  31. ↑ http://www.kalital.com/archives/2006/11/racism_and_sexism_at_citizendi.html
  32. ↑ http://www.roughtype.com/archives/2006/09/an_expertfocuse.php#c20557
  33. ↑ [2] Citizendium forum comment by Tom Morris, 26 April 2009
  34. ↑ [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2898.msg23991.html#msg23991 Citizendium forum comment by Howard C. Berkowitz, 1 October 2009
  35. ↑ [3] Citizendium forum comment by Daniel Mietchen, 9 May 2010
  36. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:FAQ#What_is_Citizendium_trying_to_achieve.3F
  37. ↑ http://reinderdijkhuis.com/wordpress/2009/02/12/citizendium-the-encyclopedia-only-pro-homeopathy-editors-can-edit/
  38. ↑ Citizendium:Homeopathy
  39. ↑ Dana Ullman ban announcement
  40. ↑ http://www.otherhealth.com/homeopathy-list-discussion/10239-new-good-alternative-wikipedia-especially-homeopathy.html
  41. ↑ Citizendium:Chiropractic
  42. ↑ Although, in fairness, Innis has been a long-term dedicated participant in Citizendium in general, and insightful concerning its problems.
  43. ↑ http://www.mail-archive.com/citizendium-l@lists.purdue.edu/msg00894.html
  44. ↑ Citizendium main page, January 28th 2009
  45. ↑ http://citesandinsights.info/civ9i5.pdf
  46. ↑ Memory of water talk page
  47. ↑ The Wiki-woes of Rothwell and Inept Cold-Fusioneers
  48. ↑ User:JedRothwell block log
  49. ↑ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax&action=history
  50. ↑ http://www.wikisynergy.com/w/index.php?title=Moon_hoax&action=history
  51. ↑ http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=25658&hl=Citizendium
  52. ↑ version of April 6, 2007
  53. ↑ Citizendium diff. of June 2, 2010
  54. ↑ Kuhn's definition of protoscience is on p. 244 of Lakatos and Musgrave, Cambridge UP, (3rd impr., 1974).
  55. ↑ [4]
  56. ↑ [5]
  57. ↑ http://modernityblog.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/hagiography-and-citizendium/
  58. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:HaeB/Some_notes_on_Citizendium
  59. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Jupiter_%28planet%29&diff=prev&oldid=100220299 Citizendium article on Jupiter
  60. ↑ Encyclopedia Dramatica entry
  61. ↑ User:Terryeo block log
  62. ↑ Truth About Scientology: Steven Ferry
  63. ↑ Scientology discussion
  64. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=100247397
  65. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=prev&oldid=100314730
  66. ↑ 2008 Council Members
  67. ↑ Scientologist infiltrates Citizendium
  68. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3108.0.html
  69. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2551.0.html
  70. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3100.0.html
  71. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2695.0.html
  72. ↑ http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,3114.0.html
  73. ↑ A writeup on how damn hard it is to even become a contributor, and the lack of incentive to continue
  74. ↑ Re: Additions to the Constabulary page by Matt (Matt Innis, Citizendium forums, 2010-07-27)
  75. ↑ [6]
  76. ↑ [7]
  77. ↑ http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Charter_drafting
  78. ↑ http://larrysanger.org/consulting.html


Retrieved from "https://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=Citizendium&oldid=626945"