They Call It Citizendium
The Internet can be a very patriotic experience, if you are slightly crazy like me. Certain websites, servers, or browsers can garner my allegiance as much any tangible organization in the real world.
[As a side note, I am not advocating this weird style of devotion, but if I did not clarify then the following might seem very strange.]
As far as web browsers go, I am a devoted servant of Safari, though long ago I recall being a disciple of Internet Explorer. In the realm of search engines, I scorn this unworthy “champion” called Google, pledging myself to Yahoo!, though I fear I might soon become a lonely radical in this regard.
My greatest loyalty, however, is to “the world in a nutshell,” better known as Wikipedia. Though often slandered as dubious and overly-nerdy, I have developed a close bond to this fount of knowledge.
[In case my mother happens to be reading this: No, mother, I do not utilize Wikipedia for my research papers … much.]
Considering my allegiance, you can understand why I was alarmed to learn of a contender attempting to initiate a coup over Wikipedia.
They call it Citizendium.
A while ago, shortly after I discovered this poser, I gave my initial arguments against its very being. However, as that was a number of months ago, I have decided to be gracious and give Citizendium a second chance to prove itself to me. After all, it is not Citizendium’s principles that I am against; this newer compendium was formed in an effort to secure more accuracy in its information, which is a noble goal.
But hey, I am loyal to Wikipedia. So there.
My test for Citizendium was to search through their massive collection of “over 5100 articles” for a few scattered interests and review the results, if any.
1. Jack Bauer: the protagonist for 24 had no article on Citizendium, nor anything relatively close. However, considering that all articles must be verified by an expert, I doubt that Jack will be making an appearance anytime soon.
2. J.S. Bach: Bach is apparently more worthy than Jack Bauer. [I suppose that happens when you are a real person instead of a pop culture icon.] At first glance, the Citizendium article on Bach seems in good order, but after a short investigation I found that large portions of the article are word-for-word transcriptions from the Wikipedia counterpart article. Who’s dubious now?
3. Harding University: nada. I shouldn’t have gotten my hopes up.
4. Golden Grahams: also nada. Among the top five results were Jefferson Airplane, Brazil, and Atheism. Pretty close.
5. Immortality: we have a winner, though you might want to check out the full text of the article.
So, after a brief and admittedly very biased review of Citizendium, I still scorn its presence on the Internet. Wikipedia may be vulnerable to inaccuracies, but I encourage everyone to have a little faith in the knowledge of the world.
Because until there is an article for Jack Bauer, my loyalties stand.
Viva la Wikipedia.