The Promise of Citizendium

Earlier this year, the history department at Middlebury College in Vermont banned students from citing Wikipedia articles in their papers and exams. This ban was enacted after the same piece of misinformation appeared in several final exams written by students in Professor Neil Waters's Japanese history class.

Prohibiting the citation of encyclopedia articles in scholarly writing is nothing new, but the action against Wikipedia made me cheer. Trained as a librarian and a historian, I have been suspicious of Wikipedia from the outset for the usual reason: the identity and authority of its contributors are unknown. I don't use the site unless I'm searching for a bit of information (e.g., an abbreviation). I certainly would never use it to look up the details of a person's biography.

Apparently, I am not the only one concerned with the issue of identity and authority. In March 2007, Larry Sanger, cocreator of Wikipedia, launched a free online “alternative” encyclopedia, Citizendium, “the citizens' compendium,” which he hopes to make trustworthy.

Before I get to his plan for achieving that, I'm going to compare and contrast these sister sites. The similarities begin with their home pages. Not only do the layout, font, and color schemes recall each other, but many of Citizendium's articles (there are 1500 in total) declare that “Content is from Wikipedia.” Unlike its counterpart on Wikipedia, which is busy with text, Citizendium's home page is pared down. Headings such as Welcome!, Join Us, and New Article of the Week provide concise information. A hierarchical layout makes both sites equally navigable. Users access content through “Entry Points” broken down into six major subject areas: Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Humanities, Arts, Applied Arts and Sciences, and Recreation. This is a streamlined version of Wikipedia's “Portals” of Arts, Culture, and Games; Current Events; Geography; Health; History; Natural Sciences and Mathematics; Philosophy, Religion, and Spirituality; Social Sciences and Society; and Technology and Engineering.

In both instances, subcategories are listed under each major heading. On Citizendium, the subcategories under Humanities include Classics, History, Literature, Philosophy, and Religion. The symbol appearing next to each is a link to the Workgroup for that area. The purpose of the Workgroups, as stated on their home pages, is to “organize, focus, and coordinate efforts to create and improve articles” within the stated discipline. Clicking on the link for a particular Workgroup reveals additional links. For example, the History Workgroup page provides links to a general article on history, a list of all articles and recent changes made, articles to be approved, approved and in-progress articles, a list of editors, a list of authors, and a discussion forum.

As with Wikipedia, anyone can volunteer to be an author or editor for Citizendium (a link on the homepage reads “Regular smart folks and experts—welcome!”), and 800 have reportedly signed up. The difference is that Citizendium requires contributors to provide their real names, biographical information, and an endorsement of the Citizendium Statement of Fundamental Policies. Ideally, contributors will also supply a “Web link or two” to help verify their identity. Around 180 subject experts are on hand to review and approve the content of the articles. Changes made to any of the articles are logged with the name of the person and the nature of the change.

This, of course, is Sanger's way of addressing the issue of authority and reliability. While Citizendium, only in its beta stage, is too new to evaluate for usefulness as a reference source, Sanger's vision of a democratic, dependable encyclopedia is compelling, and as a librarian, I trust his system as an idea. The task of the Workgroups is to approve articles after a review of their content, with a handful now passing muster (e.g., “Shirley Chisholm,” “Chiropractic”). As previously stated, many articles have been borrowed from Wikipedia, necessitating the “Big Cleanup,” and the outcomes of this effort will include accurately categorizing “live” articles and assigning unapproved articles to Workgroups.

As the site gears up, I will revisit it periodically to see if its policy of revealed identity and core of expert editors enables it to be the better free online resource. In the meantime, we librarians have expertise; we are called upon daily to evaluate the authority and reliability of reference, and we will continue to do so.