Wikipedia founder's scholarly web venture plays host to a war of words

I find Dr. Cohen's indictments fair. I indulged in some writing with Citizendium in 2007, but I decided to leave after gratuitous attacks were posted. Rather than allow me to depart in peace, Dr. Sanger insulted me in private e-mails and then "blocked" my account. Mark L. Mirabello, Ph.D., Professor of History, Shawnee State University (USA)

I recall Dr. Mirabello's contributions to Citizendium. They were entirely about a so-called Odin Brotherhood and other pagan events (or non-events) that apparently Dr. Mirabello is the only historian in the world is aware of. While interesting, perhaps, the only basis for his "facts" and speculations were other works written by Dr. Mirabello in blogs, web sites, and small-press works. The scholarship behind his contributions was, therefore, laughable. Dr. Sanger attempted to engage with him in a polite fashion, in essence doing nothing more than asking for additional citations, sources, and other items of standard scholarship. Dr. Mirabello was unable to cite anything beyond his own research. Since the Citizendium is an encyclopedia containing known facts, not a web site for original speculation, Dr. Mirabello was informed that his contributions could not be used until further scholarship could be furnished. At the moment, his contributions sit in "Cold Storage", awaiting more information and more editing.

Most academics know very well that some other academics can display surprising depths of ignorance, arrogance and irrationality. However, most of the editors and authors on Citizendium (and I think all who survive there long), whether academics or not, are remarkably good humoured, tolerant, patient and collegiate. We who write there take public communication and understanding as a serious part of what we do, but also as an enjoyable and stimulating part of it. The project is still small, and the rules and mechanisms are still evolving.

The attacks on Dr Sanger are, indeed, deeply unfair. Those who wish to judge for themselves can go to en.citizendium.org.

As one with extensive experience at Citizendium, I can attest that Dr. Cohen has a point in his assertion that experts at Citizendium do not always come easily to "consensus". In meatspace, experts tend to coauthor mostly with like-minded others, while in a project like Citizendium, they may by happenstance labor at authorship with those of contrary views. In theory, fair ground rules and enforcement mechanisms can mean that a superior end product results. And for encyclopedia articles where this process has played out, I think the results are impressive. But this is not a task for all. It requires, for example, suspending the mindset of writing to win the argument in favor of writing to fairly convey the range of arguments, including those you'd otherwise oppose. The point is to educate and elucidate the full range of a topic for the public, not win for one's positions. And therein is, I think, the rub. Experts who have trouble adding this mindset to their repertoire, while also valuing good input from non-experts as well, will tend to have trouble at Citizendium in corresponding measure. In fact, I'd venture that this is a common theme among experts who decided the project just wasn't for them. At the same time, I think that some may have come and gone *because of* editors who had difficulty exercising the mindset I am talking about. Of course, Citizendium is a young project. It's a Beta, after all. And it "entered the market" after Wikipedia had already become a mammoth. Give the project time, and if you are so inclined, try giving it some of YOUR time.

It is to be regretted that a person who sought to write an article against Citizendium joined as a contributor to that project, without revealing such a motivation when joining, and then seems to have set about provoking the very responses he appears to have been inclined to write about. Anyone that can be bothered can follow the chronology of his involvement online via www.Citizendium.org - the timeline seems pretty clear. Personally, I think Citizendium is a project for the long-haul. Knowledge transmission does not depend on how fast is the growth of a web-based project. It depends upon a far more important factor. Credibility. I would put my trust in the credibility of Dr Sanger, the ethos of the Citizendium project, and the expertise of its many specialist expert editors anytime. Mr Cohen's credibility? Well. Disclosure note: I edit at Citizendium in relation to gay and lesbian community and gay market business matters.

The real question is not whether or not writers and editors at CZ ever have disagreements among themselves, over policy, or even with the Editor-in-Chief, but whether or not they are free to give voice to those disagreements in a cordial atmosphere, and how those issues are resolved. It is generally persons of modest accomplishment and one-track agendas who run into trouble at CZ, refuse to play nicely with the other children, and are quick to bad mouth the project when they leave. CZ is nascent, and much about policy and procedure is still evolving. Having said that, CZ does what it does extremely well. I honestly don't know what Dr Cohen is talking about when he describes insults and infighting, 'experts who do not get along’, or articles of 'dubious merit'. I get along with CZ writers, and maintain cheerful contact with some who have left the project for one reason or t'other. Sure, the kids at Wikipedia churn out--ahem--'articles' by the thousands, but while I may enjoy an occasional read about 20-year-old pop artists, soap opera characters or the monsters in the Harry Potter universe, one cannot call this brain candy scholarly. Just for the heck of it I have just checked a random group of WP articles about which I have some knowledge: a dog breed (incorrect history and description), a village in my area (the mayor is described as a superhero—cute—they don’t have a mayor), an entrepreneur (racist language used) and an organisation to which I belong (very outdated). Compare the approved and even the not-yet-approved articles marked 'developed' at CZ and judge for yourself.

Having been a contributor to Citizendium since very early in the project, I've watched as several sensitive or controversial topics have caused heated debate. Such is the nature of the online collaborative communities, I'm afraid. But I've been impressed with the way that the Citizendium community has dealt with these debates, a result, I'm sure, of the social contract under which we operate. Drs. Cohen and Mirabello both the bulk of their time as part of the Citizendium community on controversial topics and Dr. Cohen jumped directly into an ongoing discussion about the homeopathy article. Though I have remained uninvolved with that particular article, it certainly looked to me like Dr. Cohen caused the debate to become much more heated rather than less so. In fact, he violated the collaborative and professional spirit of the project in multiple ways on numerous occasions. On the issue of "finished" articles, I would enjoin anyone who is interested to read Citizendium's article on homeopathy, which was approved in spite of Dr. Cohen's disruptions by one of the most prominent experts and advocates of homeopathy as well as a neuroscientist/physiologist and a practicing professional in the related field of chiropractic. Then have a look at the notices at the top of the discussion page for Wikipedia's article on homeopathy! Citizendium is "less likely to reach consensus than the amateurs who contribute articles to Wikipedia"? Really? From there, one might explore other articles on a wide variety of subjects that have been approved by people with demonstrated expertise. Where anyone gets the idea that the articles we've approved are "of dubious merit" is frankly beyond me.

Julia, didn't you just prove the point?

To be more specific, where is the body of scholarly knowledge about a group of 160 people?

I was not impressed by the lack of journalistic professionalism in this article. Starting the article by labeling it an open and chaotic conflict “war of words” is hardly framing the topic in an objective context. By contrast the editor places the source of the article in a conciliatory and reasoned framework, to wit: “Martin Cohen, … contacted Times Higher Education with a series of concerns about the website” and “In his critique, which he said was intended constructively, Dr Cohen claimed .” Labeling informed debate as “infighting,’ merely expands the lack of balanced perspective. This is not journalism so much as it is poisoning the well. Open ended assertions without validation, e.g. “He said the experts it used were even less likely to reach consensus than the amateurs who contribute articles to Wikipedia.,” given that there is no evidence of any study to support such a broad stroke of opprobrium is not, to put it mildly, balanced reporting. Civility prevents me from calling it what it really is. The author of the article reports: “He [Larry Sanger] said that Dr Cohen's contributions to articles often amounted to "bold, sweeping claims without adequate evidence", and that his behaviour on the site had "begun irritating participants more and more". "He was frequently dismissive of the concerns of others and occasionally disrespectful", he said.” It is important to note here that CZ strives for credible, verifiable, and accessible support for its statements in every article. M. Cohen did in fact frequently write large amounts of text without providing reasonable and reasoned sources for his claims. It was just bad scholarship, if it could be accorded such a status at all. M. Cohen’s claims of abuse are largely if not wholly a personal perspective--to use a colloquial cliché, ‘you have to want it.’ Assuming abuse here is the view point of the reader and M. Cohen was quick to do just that. To wrap up, I spent quite some time on Wikipedia and while I am deeply impressed that the concept has taken off with such vigour, I also know how acrimonious it became and how, as a one who has gone to the trouble of acquiring gradate credentials Wikipedia does not aspire to transparent and verifiable credibility. CZ is the next step in the evolution of an open source body of knowledge and M. Cohen had very less than constructive ideas about how he wanted to exploit an extraordinary opportunity. Thomas Simmons Retired teacher and CZ Constable

Dr. Cohen proved a disruptive force on Citizendium and got himself banned. Now he's trying to tar and feather the project. As far as I'm concerned, he has no credibility. Citizendium is a great project; civility, stability and reliability of information is higher than Wikipedia (where trolls guard many pages). I'll stick with Citizendium any day.

My little monograph, The Odin Brotherhood, is not an academic text, but it is constructed in dialogue form, to serve as a "primary source" for pagans. Since it has been in print for seventeen years, in five editions, someone is reading it. Other authors who refer to the Odin Brotherhood are listed: * Melton, J. Gordon. Melton's Encyclopedia Of American Religions (Encyclopedia of American Religions) 8th edition. Gale Cengage, 2009. ISBN 078769696X * Streeter, Michael. Behind Closed Doors: The Power and Influence of Secret Societies.. London: New Holland Publishers, Ltd. 2008. ISBN 1845379373 * Harvey, Graham. Paganism Today: Wiccans, Druids, the Goddess and Ancient Earth Traditions for the Twenty-First Century. Thorsons, 2001. ISBN 0722532334 * Kaplan, Jeffrey. Radical Religion in America: Millenarian Movements from the Far Right to the Children of Noah. Syracuse University Press, 1997. ISBN 0815603967 * Kick, Russ. Outposts: A Catalog of Rare and Disturbing Alternative Information. Carroll & Graf Publishing, 1995. ISBN 0786702028. For anyone interested, an academic review of my little work (by Dr. Sarah Pike of California State University) is available from Nova Religio. Citizendium, as an idea is sound, but it has developed an atmosphere in which real people are slandered under their own names. At least Wikipedia provides the cloak of anonymity.

If "real people are slandered under their own names" at Citizendium, then I'm sure that Citizendium will soon disappear from sight, destroyed by onerous payments imposed by legal authorities for the benefit of those slandered.

How marvelous! Dr. Cohen, the professional philosopher who excoriates Citizendium as being rude, unprofessional, unappreciative of his efforts, and grossly inferior to Wikipedia, has, himself, been banned from Wikipedia itself since last July, both under his own name and the numerous assumed names ("sock-puppets") that he created in order to circumvent the original ban. And why was the eminent scholar banned? Disruption of the Wikipedia process. Is this really a person to whom Times Higher Education should be giving a forum for his highly inaccurate diatribes?

Incidentally, Dr. Mirabello, as a Ph.D., I would have expected you to be cognizant of the difference between "slander" and "libel". Libel being the *written* expression of unjust or defamatory statements, as opposed to slander, which is spoken, perhaps you meant to say that "real people are *libeled* under their own names" at Citizendium?

I deal with many highly qualified people on a daily basis. They have rarely, if ever, felt the need to publicize their academic qualifications in their public signature. I could put a lot of academic initials earned after my name too, but to what end? Just an observation.

Not only did many, many members of Wikipedia *discuss* deleting Dr. Mirabello's "The Odin Brotherhood" back in 2006, they actually came to a conclusion about it: they deleted it. No article about the so-called Odin Brotherhood now exists at Wikipedia.

Regarding the Wikipedia article on the Odin Brotherhood, the delete tag was actually applied while the article was being written! Then, a rather foolish debate followed, mainly by people who knew nothing about the subject. The article was eventually posted, lasted about a year, and was deleted by the same administrator who targeted it the first time. The administrator is someone who spends up to 16 hours each day on Wikipedia. Of course, this highlights the problems with wikis. People gain power through the number of edits. Even unemployed 30-year-olds living in their parents’ basements can become administrators because they have nothing else to do except write for wikis.

For the record, as I told him, both Mark Mirabello and his article are welcome back on CZ if he can provide evidence that the Odin Brotherhood is not something that he made up out of whole cloth himself. That was always the main issue, somewhat clouded by the above discussion. The fact that Dr. Mirabello's book was reviewed in a journal does not clinch the point. I think a competent and honest scholar would be able to marshall more convincing evidence on this obviously crucial issue.

Hmm...I don't think Citizendium has all that much to worry about when people like Julia set out to be castigating and actually end up proving out points. 1. The actual, vetted experts at Citizendium are hampered when egomaniacal self-proclaimed experts attempt to cause havoc and 2. Young people with without anything particular with which to recommend themselves in terms of education, expertise or just old old life experience can nevertheless rise to heights of power and undue influence at Wikipedia. Who's gonna argue with you, Jules?

Larry Sanger: "by that measure, we are ahead of Wikipedia, which has no expert-approved articles at all." This is not, in fact, true. Wikipedia does have experts on it who have in fact reviewed and written articles whether or not there's a sticker saying so or not. The Wikipedia "Featured Articles" aren't entirely on point - they are consistently reviewed for style and prose more than comprehensiveness - but at least SOME of them have been reviewed by bona-fida experts, as have other articles that aren't listed as a featured article. As Wikipedia has 2,387 Featured Articles, only 3.6% of them would need to have been expert-reviewed to equal CZ's 86 articles. And that's ignoring expert-written articles that haven't gone to FA or wouldn't pass it due to stylistic concerns.

Prove that the Odin Brotherhood exists? Dr. Sanger, we have had this discussion innumerable times, and you simply refuse to accept the evidence. As I have mentioned above, the LATEST edition of the “Encyclopedia of American Religions,” by Dr Gordon Melton, discusses the Odin Brotherhood, and this is the definitive reference work on religion in the USA. Also, your own alma mater, OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY, has my little book in their RELIGION section. Be that as it may, I thank you for the invitation to rejoin your project, but I must respectfully decline. The intemperate and hostile comments that have been posted here is the reason. Wikis depend on volunteerism (I was not paid for my edits and editing a wiki is not something anyone can add to a professional c.v. ), and, if Citizendium is to survive, the rotten-egg throwing must stop. There is the principle in economics that “bad money drives out the good,” and the same happens with wikis. I have never met DR. COHEN, but it is ridiculous that someone with his credentials could be expelled from Wikipedia or your site.

Sorry, I meant to say that "The intemperate and hostile comments that have been posted here are my reasons." I cut and pasted two drafts....Sorry about that.

Indeed, we've gone over this before, Dr. Mirabello. An encyclopedia article that is based on your book does not establish anything, nor do mentions in uncritical catalogs of pagan and new age religions and the like. We need original sources. You have not provided us with any other original source other than yourself. Do any of these secondary sources you mention provide any original sources, other than yourself, or are they all based on your book and perhaps a group that has grown up around it? Well, I think I've made my point. But in defending CZ against your attacks, some clarification was definitely needed. I'll bow out now.

I'm more amused than annoyed by the comment that Wikipedia has no articles approved by experts. I'm a scientist and an active contributor to Wikipedia and have written articles in cooperation with fellow biochemists and molecular biologists as well as in areas further from my training: where I have worked with, for example, microbiologists and evolutionary biologists. Just because people can't use their academic position to bolster their authority when contributing to Wikipedia, doesn't mean that experts are not contributing and correcting content. Citizendium may one day become a useful resource, but even in terms of expert participation it is still lagging a long way behind Wikipedia.

If Citizendium's articles on homeopathy and memory of water are any testament to how the encyclopedia will be developed, there is probably not any chance that it will replace Wikipedia in spite of the latter's flaws.

The real problem with citizendium is not that there are sometimes acrimonious disputes - you are always going to get that online - it's the requirement to edit under your own name. That is just an invitation to real-world harassment, particularly for those who may want to write about politically charged issues. In my opinion citizendium will never reach "critical mass" because the real name requirement ensures that the overwhelming bulk of people who would otherwise be interested in contributing will never do so.

Any project that involves multiple people will involve personality conflicts.

If Larry Sanger seriously thinks that an article on homeopathy that fails to mention that dilutions very often progress to the point where no molecules exist is better than one that does; that the same article suggesting outright dangerous medical advice about using homeopathy to treat serious asthmatic attacks instead of effective medicine is a good thing, then Citizendium should be treated as complete fringe. Larry Sanger himself wrote Wikipedia's Neutral Pont of View Policy in 2001. It included the following If we're going to represent the sum total of "human knowledge"--of what we believe we know, essentially--then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes fairly, on some bogus view of fairness that would have us describe pseudoscience as if were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly. Citizendium, however, would rather support the pseudoscience, and present it as equal or better than science.

Um... that didn't format very well, but I trust it's clear.

I am no expert and I just stumbled upon this discussion… but regarding the Larry Sanger Versus Mark Mirabello PhD argument it seems to me that Larry Sanger has the upper hand… I did a web search about the Odin Society…apparently it is a SECRET society that has its own web site! Now here is a paradox if I ever saw one… ohhh wait a minute a quick search on whiois revelas that the site owner is.... (drumroll) MARK! Also Mark suggests his book has been out for 17 years…couldn’t then I suggest that the 160 people who are writing in whatever forum became fans after the book was published??? The Jedi Religion is a similar example… so the argument would then become as to what constitutes knowledge… does it matter how old a religion is or how well it was documented? If there is any evidence of its past or current existence should it be part of the body of knowledge? Many years ago people believed the Earth was flat… If those scientists had created citizendium what would they have banned Galileo? I had a quick look at Marks intro and his argument is that the Odin Brotherhood is an Ancient Religion. Galileo got his round earth now what you need Mark is an ancient Viking Tomb and you are all set… oh bummer they used to burn them didn’t they???? PS. The above are the thoughts of a complete ignorant non PhD reader and should be taken as lightly as they were swiftly written….

As a long-time member and active writer, first at Wikipedia (under my own name), and now of Citizendium, I believe that Mr. Cuerden is clearly wrong in his comments about our homeopathy article: the molecular dilution is clearly mentioned and the article as a whole is obviously deeply skeptical of homeopathy. It does, however, attempt to write about it in a neutral, non-biased way. The article, may I say, is still being attacked by some homeopathic believers as being deeply unfair to their beliefs. As a fairly senior member of Citizendium, I invite Mr. Cuerden to join our project: although the article on homeopathy is now Approved, which means that it is no longer open to revisions AT THE MOMENT, we have, right beside it, and easily accessible to any member, the same article but in "Draft" status. Any member is free to edit it and rewrite it following our normal guidelines. We would welcome any corrections, additions, and editing that Mr. Cuerden would care to make. Eventually, a "draft" article, with all its improvements, will be approved by the appropriate editors, and that version will update and replace the present "Approved" article. The differences between our process and those at Wikipedia should be obvious to anyone who cares to study them.

Dear mr/ms Just a reader, Since about 300 BCE it is known that the Earth is round (i.e., non-flat). Copernicus stated in 1543 that the Earth orbits the Sun. This has nothing to do with the flat- or roundness of the Earth, as a pancake can orbit the Sun too. Almost a century later Galileo stated (ca 1615) that he believed the moving Earth model of Copernicus, rather than the stationary Earth model of the Roman Catholic Church. For your further information, a few decades before Copernicus (ca. 1520) Magellan's men traveled around the Earth by going westward all through their journey. Had the Earth been flat they couldn't have done that. Yours, PES Wormer.

I did say I was just a reader no where near the genious or calibre at that... If I wanted to argue the heliocentricity of Galileos argument and subsequent minor persecution I would, that wasnt the point... I utilised the flat earth myth to highlight just that, history can be manipulated, therefore today I can say one thing and then create a website about it... then use that website as supporting evidence...

An update on Dr. Martin Cohen being banned from Citizendium. He formally appealed his ban to the Constabulary two months ago. The Constabulary does not always work quickly but it does work thoroughly. Finally, a few days ago, the Chief Constable notified Dr. Cohen that after examining all of the evidence, three independent Constables who had had no previous dealings with Dr. Cohen in any way or with any of the articles upon which he formed his grievances, decided unanimously that Dr. Cohen's ban was merited and that his appeal was denied. Dr. Cohen may, however, at some future time, apply to be readmitted to Citizendium.

When i started the Odin Brotherhood forum using the name of Mark L Mirabello for credibility, I never thought it would be the cause of so much trouble. I apologise to Mark Mirabello Unreservedly, I will however continue the forum in its present location and in its present format as I believe it is for the right reasons for those who know.

To Hayford: Ah, I see it does, 7 pages into the article after giving evidence-free advocacy free reign, and is then treated as a strawman for water memory quackery. Got you.

The biggest impediment to developing Citizendium is Hayford Peirce himself. Condescending smug remarks and dictating towards academics, drives away people who actually contribute.

Articles on tennis players and fictional detectives, what's the point? It's all been done much better elsewhere on the internet.

As an "academic who actually contributes" to Citizendium I take issue with the previous two comments. As far as I'm aware mr. Peirce has not driven any academics away. The comment that anything can be found anywhere on the internet is true for almost everything on the internet and hence is meaningless.

They've been done much better elsewhere, particularly on Wikipedia. Citizendium is inferior to articles on Wikipedia - both in quantity and quality, tennis players and fictional detectives included. And no arrogant "constables' on Wikipedia either.

You mean that the only arrogant Wikipedians are high-school kids and college freshmen? I have come across a few more arrogant categories during my time at WP.

I find it intriguing that after two months or so with no posting in this thread, a week or so after Adam Cuerden was permanently banned from Citizendium three separate messages pop up excoriating Citizendium for various sins. As an exercise for the students, can anyone here spell "claque" or "sockpuppet"?

I predict Citizendium will close well before the end of 2010, and Hayford Peirce will be without a project to bully people away. No tears shed from the public. The project has not received a sizable donation since it started and with Larry Sanger leaving soon, it will not survive more than a year.

Tim Westbrook refused to play by the rules of Citizendium, as was politely pointed out to him by numerous Citizens and eventually simply walked away. If you care to take the time, you can track his activities down at Wikipedia and see that he exhibited exactly the same behavior there over an extended period of time and had many well-documented problems with both their administrators and the other editors. The reason he briefly joined Citizendium was that he was no longer welcome at Wikipedia and thought, mistakenly, that his idiosyncratic and disruptive behavior would be tolerated at Citizendium. He is one of only a very few cases of this nature. It is too bad, for he had an enormous amount of material to contribute but he was too stubborn to learn that it had to be written in the Citizendium manner and not in the Tim Westbook manner.

Typical Hayford Peirce response - always playing the man not the ball, never addressing the issue. One only has to look at the vituperate foul-mouthed juvenile comments left on Wikipedia to other users, by Hayford Peirce himself eg. "undo typical cretinous WP vandalism", "restored to an earlier version that had a lot less of the typical WP changes made by cretins and vandals for no particular reason except extreme ignorance", "revert dumb vandalism, par for the course here at WP", "restore important paragraph that either cretins or vandals (or both, since they are the majority of editors at WP) keep removing" etc etc. You're intolerant of other people's opinions, which is why you are driving away contributors from Citizendium, myself included, and what's more you accuse others of unprofessional behaviour yet you're doing exactly what you accuse others of by calling most editors cretins or vandals. It appears you are incapable of civility.

True, I plead guilty of being frequently incapable of civility when dealing with cretins and vandals, those two most prominent species of people at Wikipedia. When dealing with people at Citizendium, however, who are neither, but merely occasionally misguided, I am the most civilized of persons. Even when dealing with you, Mr. Westbrook, who resolutely refused to play by our rules in spite of all the various people who tried to explain them to you, I was always polite and respectful. If you join an organization with clearly defined rules and usages, and then refuse to abide by them, why do you then blame the organization rather than your own behavior?

Enough already! Don't you people have lives? Go and live a little.... this is all just twaddle and nonsense. It's like snarkiness at the trainspotter's convention.

Like I said Hayford Peirce, I don't believe Citizendium will last beyond 2010. You will be out of a job soon with nowhere to play your juvenile power games over contributors.

Gee, Mr. Westbrook, that is sure a bleak prospect -- gone, the $350,000 per annum that I am now being paid to be a Constable! Guess I'll just have to return to Wikipedia to write articles for free and to see them subjected to the depredations of the vandals and cretins that I tolerate so well....

Constables belong in police forces, not in projects aimed squarely at academics. The term "police state" comes to mind when thinking of citizendium.

The nice thing about the Citizendium "police state" is that no one is forcing you or Mr. Westbrook to join it. If you do join, however, we do require you to play nicely with the other children. In other words, to be polite, professional, and to follow the rules. Is that too much to expect from supposedly civilized and educated people? I myself would not have chosen the word "constable". It was chosen long before I got there and there was a subsequent discussion about this a year or so ago but no one could come up with anything better. "Constable" is actually generally thought of in terms of "the village constable", however, which has a reasonably friendly connotation. So, all in all, it's actually a far better word than "administrator" or "sysop". If you can think of a better word, please let us know....

"Village"? Then your village is calling you back. You chose the words "morons" and "vandals" to describe most editors. No-one but yourself forced you to use those uncivil terms. If anyone wanted proof why you shouldn't contribute to citizendium, hayford peirce's past actions are a good reason as any.

I think anyone who is tempted to rely on Citizendium as a more "scholarly" version of Wikipedia ought to be made to read that homeopathy article. Apart from the websites of homeopaths, it is the most uncritical and unscholarly thing I've ever read on the subject.

The articles on British history are disgraceful. Heavily edited with a pro-conservative bias. The entire Labour governments of the 1960s and 1970s appear to have been deliberately excluded from the Timeline: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Britain%2C_history/Timelines&diff=next&oldid=100463509 Entire sections on the British history page appear to have been deliberately blanked from public view: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Britain%2C_history&diff=100546310&oldid=100546301

Thanks for the pointer. I'm no historian, but I've attempted to fill in some of the gaps.

I agree with Paul Erik's assessment. Hayford Peirce's constant condescending criticisms, POV interferences, and micro-managing of users, is not something you would expect from a project that prides itself on expertise. It's a turn-off for academic contributors and would explain the high rate of authors leaving the project. He needs to resign if citizendium could ever go forward.

Hayford Peirce's vituperate condescending remarks of other authors will come back to haunt him. Totally unprofessional of him and reflects badly on citizendium.

Martin Cohen is - I believe - neither a professional philosopher nor a "Dr", though he increasingly often dignifies himself with this title. That he has been banned from both Citizendium and Wikipedia for irresponsible drivel ought to give THES pause about accepting his material, let alone giving it such prominence as in his recent rant about climate change.

Beta, sure its only Beta. It's been stuck at Beta since 2007. It'll be three years old as a public site in 2 months time: that is middle-aged in Internet terms. Middle -aged and moribund. Word-play over live vs approved is deception: the entire point of CZ was to bring expert approved content to the reader. It hasn't.

To the fool above who stated that Wikipedia was superior because it doesn't have Constables - no, instead WP has mobs, star chambers and drumhead trials. WP has lots and lots of pornography and articles on sexual fetishes and practices. I don't believe that CZ will survive because it has little exposure outside of its own "community", its business model is a begging bowl and it has a much bigger rival which is well known (even if it is rife with vandalism) But WP may soon fail if someone takes WP on for its penchant for porn and its regular libelling of living people.

Citizendium is stuck on beta and will likely never go forward. It's like a car that can only drive in one gear because the others don't work. It's days are numbered. Anyone looking at their recent article and editors statistics will see they are scraping the bottom of the graph towards zero.