Citizendium is to Foo as Wikipedia is to Bar

Citizendium aspires to have a group of intellectuals create moderated great ideas. Like foo camp has an invited group of intellectuals.

Wikipedia aspires to have editors from the willing and takes all comers. Like bar camp has unconferences of the willing.

Some background:

Citizendium is being started by Larry Sanger, one of the cofounders of wikipedia. It is like wikipedia but with peer review. From the citizendium essay.

Imagine what is
possible with tens of millions of intellectuals working together on educational
and reference projects.

The wrench in the whole thing is that wikipedia started as a dot com called nupedia with experts and peer review (sanger) . So wikipedia started where citizendium is trying to restart. From Larry Sanger, the cofounder of wikipedia, on slashdot.

Wikipedia’s predecessor, which I was also employed to organize, was
Nupedia. Nupedia was to be a highly reliable, peer-reviewed resource
that fully appreciated and employed the efforts of subject area
experts, as well as the general public.

Is this getting recursive to anyone else?

There is a strong ideological battle going on between ultimate freedom
of content and peer review by experts.

The community may know a lot
about breast cancer. Yes they want to cure it. Yet it is also very
important to fund the people who are studying it full time with both a
financial incentive and an ideological incentive to solve the problem.
Experts have their place. What I want is a cure, or better yet a vaccine. I just want it gone. I think experts are the way to go when the stakes are high.

I like wikipedia. But I am looking forward to citizendium. And I never visit Britannica because they don’t show up anonymous in

update: first – fixed "compendium" to "citizendium" – not sure what part of the brain that came from. I guess I need editors. <grin>

update2: please note Larry Sanger’s comments below.