Revolution

Revolutionary moments attract those who are not good enough for established institutions as well as those who are too good for them. Author: George Bernard ShawSource: Androcles and the Lion

I thought this quote fit nicely with my thoughts about Wikipedia and now Citizendium. Wikipedia really does appear a revolution in the directed, wide spread distribution of information by both the unwashed masses and academic elites. Like all revolutions. It starts as a reaction to the narrowness or abuses of the status quo, and then warps out of control, which leads to a reversal or crackdown. I quote Shaw again because I think Wikipedia and Citizendium are rushing to this state,

Revolutions have never lightened the burden of tyranny: they have only shifted it to another shoulder. Author: George Bernard ShawSource: Man and Superman--"The Revolutionist's Handbook"

Who better but an Irishman to understand the difficulty of revolution and tyranny?

To what extent is Sanger taking the free wheeling revolution of Wikidom (it they can make up words, why not me) and imposing his own sense of control, a tyranny over what are appropriated sources of information, a tyranny of the mind. How quickly this revolution is coming back to control of a few, a reflection of the rapid spread of information. Look at how Citizendium introduces itself (a cynical view):
The Citizendium, a "citizens' compendium of everything," will be an experimental new wiki project that combines public participation with gentle expert guidance. It will begin life as a "progressive fork" of Wikipedia. But we expect it to take on a life of its own and, perhaps, to become the flagship of a new set of responsibly-managed free knowledge projects. We will avoid calling it an "encyclopedia," because there will probably always be articles in the resource that have not been vouched for in any sense.
We believe a fork is necessary, and justified, both to allow regular people a place to work under the direction of experts, and in which personal accountability--including the use of real names--is expected. In short, we want to create a responsible community and a good global citizen.
Where are Napoleon and Snowball? They use language of revolution “citizen compendium” and a voice for “regular people,” but with the caveat of “gentle expert guidance” and “under the direction of experts.” Who defines ‘expert’ but those in control and in most situations the selection is obvious. However, it was experts who told us of WMDs and that we had enough troops on the ground. It will be the expert who determines if Clinton was impeached on legal ground, if we are experiencing global warning, and if Columbus was an explorer or a pirate. And to what extent is ‘gentle guidance’ and ‘direction’ the deletion of an edit or new topic by someone with a different point of view?
I believe that both sites can co-exist, but, perhaps, with one assuming status as the truer source of information and the other a collection of thoughts to be treated as original documents, not expert sources. I like this post from a disaffected St. Anne (how does an assumed name reflect who we want to be and what we are not currently)
gone after a few short weeks. "This is not (and likely never will be) an encyclopedia. It is more like the large filing cabinet stuffed with clippings, half finished projects, notes, the travel pamphlet collection, manuals for obsolete software and long discarded small appliances, and odd photos etc. that sits in my den and that I will sort through someday".
Perhaps the great value and differentiation of Wikipedia will be is value as a source or both information and a window into cultural opinions and values.