ANALYSIS
Would-Be Wikipedia Replacements Stumble

Those who love old-paradigm encyclopedias -- including many encyclopedia publishers, teachers and librarians -- view Wikipedia with dismay. They are suspicious of the wiki principle of distributed authority. They say "I told you so" about the frequent vandalism that ruins many Wikipedia articles. They do not view it as a credible reference source. Of course, Wikipedia doesn't do itself any favors with its hundreds of biographies of porn stars and professional wrestlers, not to mention recurrent high-profile examples of article sabotage.

Another disaffected group includes former and present Wikipedians who love the concept but are disappointed with its implementation. They are particularly concerned that expertise carries little weight in creating a Wikipedia article, and they want to improve Wikipedia by subjecting it to greater control by formally credentialed experts. They have created two Wikipedia spinoffs-Citizendium and Veropedia-that "improve" selected Wikipedia content. Both projects closely resemble Wikipedia, but are they really better?

Comments About Citizendium

Citizendium, which is short for "Citizens Compendium of Everything," is the first Wikipedia counter-revolution. Larry Sanger, one of Wikipedia's original founders, launched the site in November 2006. Its mission is to apply "gentle expert oversight" to the Wikipedia process, thereby achieving old-paradigm encyclopedia reliability .

Its method is to apply the wiki process to existing Wikipedia articles and newly written ones, with one major difference: Credentialed contributors or editors have more authority than regular contributors or authors. Editors are typically academics and professionals who have advanced degrees. They assume authority for articles in their fields and have the final say in modifying and approving articles. This occurs through a highly convoluted process for submitting, reviewing and approving changes, in which editors and authors collaborate in an intricate hierarchical relationship.

What are the results of the Citizendium authority-driven model? Not much. There are 4,000-plus articles in Citizendium, but this number is misleading. Many articles are one paragraph or one page "starters" with little content. Citizendium covers a wide range of typical encyclopedia subjects, but with so few articles, the selection is sparse in any of them. Citizendium also avoids hot-button articles (such as politicians' biographies) that have caused so much trouble in Wikipedia. Citizendium's articles don't differ greatly from their Wikipedia counterparts; often, there are only minor editorial changes. In a few cases, I judged that the Wikipedia version was better and more reliably "encyclopedic" than the one in Citizendium. To date, the Citizendium model is less a revolution than a ripple.

The Virtues of Veropedia

Veropedia, which describes itself as a "metalayer" to Wikipedia, was started in October 2007 by a group of Wikipedia editors who wanted to create "quality, stable versions" of Wikipedia articles. It also closely resembles Wikipedia, with one exception: It is in part ad-supported, with ads appearing on most pages.

The Veropedia model is designed to engage subject experts in cleaning up selected Wikipedia articles in form and content. The panel of Veropedia experts "renovate" a Veropedia article by removing cleanup tags, disambiguation links, dead links and other Wikipedia clutter. Content changes are much harder to spot because Veropedia articles generally are almost identical to their Wikipedia counterparts; most changes are modest rearrangements or rephrasings of text without major revisions that substantially change the article.

Veropedia claims to have nearly 5,000 articles. This figure is not credible, since many of these articles are small and insignificant almanac-type entries that serve mainly as filler. For example, Veropedia has hundreds of individual "articles" for obscure astronomical phenomena such as asteroids, stars and galaxies; for years and the days of each month; for national flags; for state nicknames; and so on. I estimate that perhaps half of Veropedia's articles are this kind of fluff. Veropedia's genuine articles cover history, historical biography, science and technology. In other words, Veropedia, like Citizendium, avoids the tough challenge of handling controversial and time-sensitive subjects.

Why Alternate Wikipedias?

Perhaps it's unfair to pick on Citizendium and Veropedia since both are new and still officially in beta. Nevertheless, both have explicit missions and models that chart their futures -- and their futures aren't promising. Despite noble intentions, they are suffering from disabling flaws.

First, their models of contributor/expert collaboration are cumbersome and laborious, which makes it hard to get anything done. There is also the big problem of incentive for the experts; their expertise is their livelihood, and they are reluctant to give it away. They don't get paid, and contributing to wiki-type web projects is not a scholarly publishing credential that is important to academics. Thus, finding enough experts to contribute to, and continually maintain, a full-size encyclopedia is a formidable problem.

Second, their models, which merge old- and new-paradigm encyclopedia publishing, are uncomfortable marriages. They insist upon old-paradigm authority and stability, yet they are trying to work within a new paradigm, which discounts old school authority and dismisses stability. A more successful model might be Scholarpedia, which uses the wiki platform but with its own original scholarly content.

Finally, they are trying to solve the wrong problem. Applying old-paradigm expectations to Wikipedia misses the point. Wikipedia is a new-paradigm encyclopedia, and its faults are inherent in its model, which is overwhelmingly successful and worthwhile. Consider the main old-school criticisms of Wikipedia:

• CON: Anybody can write an article. PRO: Wikipedia has reasonably accurate articles on topics that old paradigm encyclopedias cannot possibly cover.
• CON: Wikipedia is full of errors. PRO: If Wikipedia is so inaccurate, why are the "corrected" articles in Citizendium and Veropedia almost identical? Consider another important point: Most of the criticism of Wikipedia's inaccuracy falls on controversial, emotionally laden topics, which Citizendium and Veropedia do not cover.
• CON: Wikipedia articles are always changing. PRO: This is one of Wikipedia's greatest strengths. There is nothing like a good Wikipedia article for integrating background information with the latest news on a subject. It is unique in having the advantages of both a thorough overview and a current news service.

Veropedia and Citizendium are like 20-volume encyclopedia sets with 19 volumes missing. In other words, they are now almost useless, and I doubt that either of them will ever achieve the critical mass that will make them viable reference sources, especially since Wikipedia already serves this purpose quite well.

So, my recommendation is to quit wasting time trying to create a parallel database outside of Wikipedia. Instead, work within Wikipedia. Fix its articles and label them as such. It's a win-win situation: You achieve your goal of improving Wikipedia but in a way that people will actually use.