< Previous page

I think the answer is yes, and it incorporates much of the energy of the Wikipedia while drawing on specialists in their fields as arbiters of quality.

The Citizendium site (http://en.citizendium.org) is an interesting play on this idea, one whose founder, Larry Sanger, had some involvement in the Wikipedia's earliest days. Citizendium aims to take the open model of Wikipedia into new terrain by demanding that all articles be checked for accuracy by specialists. It also asks all contributors to register their real names (Wikipedia's writers are under no obligation to identify themselves).

Professionalism and civility are often lacking in online debate, and you can imagine what happens when that debate turns to controversial subjects like the war in Iraq or conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Wikipedia's openness can encourage people with extreme views to muddy the development of entries on such subjects, while the Citizendium model may be able to harness some of Wikipedia's raw energy while offering a more consistent result.

As these things evolve, though, we're forced to hone our own research skills, using both the Wikipedias and Britannicas with a sense of the limitations and strengths of each.

That's not a bad outcome if it encourages critical thinking, and I tend to see the interplay of these models as a chance to hammer home the value of both individual initiative and expert judgment. That the two can work together seems a premise on the way to vindication.

< Previous page

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.