Print

Comment

Email

Digg

Del.icio.us

Reddit

Twitter

Searching for information on the Internet is becoming increasingly difficult. It is hard to rely on what is available and yet there is little choice for a person searching for information. Your take?
Precisely. As the Internet is rapidly expanding, the available information is increasing in a way like never before, thereby adding to the clutter. But even so, if you notice, there has been a slight shift in the way we search for information. For instance, if we want something generic we use Google, but if we are on the lookout for something specific, there is Wikipedia. Google is best suited for more general or rather generic information. In fact, one of the best things currently is that Google even searches inside Wikipedia now.

Reliability of information is a critical issue. And Wikipedia has often been accused of having unreliable information; there are quite a few reasons for it. And that is where Citizendium fits in; it is a citizen compendium of knowledge, moderated by academicians, scholars, editors, etc. Thus bringing credibility to the information that is displayed.

By bringing in academicians, scholars, etc, would Citizendium not be more elitist in nature?
Certainly not. We are not trying to make it elitist in any sort of way; I am just trying to involve a section of the population that so far has not contributed in a major way. There will be complete democracy at Citizendium, similar to what is there on Wikipedia, but there would not be mob-rule democracy. The role of editors has been clearly defined and whenever a dispute arises, multiple views will be sought. I believe experts and scholars have a lot to share with the world, and Citizendium is just providing them a platform, like it is for everyone else.

In a way, isn't it like creating an 'expertopedia' akin to Encyclopedia Britannica?
I disagree. The fundamentals of Citizendium are quite the same as that of Wikipedia, but there is a major difference. Wikipedia lacks maturity that is attractive to professor/academics. Things like anonymity are quite off-putting to potential educational contributors. Yet, the method and the aim of both remain alike.

Meanwhile, take the case of Britannica, it is quite picky on articles and is created in a top down fashion. Whereas as Citizendium, and also Wikipedia for that matter, are created efficiently in a bottom-up process. Thus we are much more closer to Wikipedia then we are to say Britannica.

Why will scholars and experts choose to contribute at Citizendium?
Let me first tell you something. It is not as if scholars and experts did not get involved with Wikipedia. A lot many did, in spite of their reservations and the reason they do is because they feel innately obliged to share knowledge with the world at large. In most academicians there is an inherent desire to spread their word, to show off in a way. Many are also driven by their liking for truth and aesthetics and thus want to clear the air of any fallacies. These are broadly the things that motivate such people. So, Citizendium will encourage them to share their knowledge, for instance, there will be no anonymous contributors.

Will the articles carry signature of the individuals then?
Not at all. People are often averse to articles that have been signed by others. By anonymity I mean people will have to log in and register with a valid email ID before they can be part of the edit team.

How is the work progressing at Citizendium and when will it be launched?
We will start off as a fork of Wikipedia (thus we will have the same number of articles, etc) and we will start off with the English version. Over the time, as more and more people keep editing or adding information to articles present (and once it is approved by editors), these edited versions will be retained and thus Citizendium will evolve into a viable alternative. But this process will be long, as there are millions of articles and it will be stretched over a few months.

What is the revenue model? How will the venture be funded?
Donation is one of the major ways, both individual and corporate, to fund the venture. So far we have received over $1,300 mn from individuals. We have also received our first seed grant, and a commitment for larger amount of money from other foundations. Corporates are also supporting this venture through different means, like providing deep discount on computer hardware, bandwidth connectivity, etc. To generate revenue, we will be looking at content brokerage in the future.

Wales somewhere mentioned that if you fork from Wikipedia, he can similarly display Citizendium pages at Wikipedia. How do you feel about that?
Wikipedia can, but when we are forking we are providing a link back to Wikipedia. I do not know how they will display Citizendium content without providing a link back to us.

Are you angered at not being recognized for the role you played in Wikipedia?
More than anger, I am pained. To be frank, I would have been much happier if my contribution was recognized, and not underemphasized in a self-serving way. While I do not undermine Jimmy's (Wales) role in Wikipedia, my role at Wikipedia has also been significant. Till 2004, Wikipedia press releases referred to me as a "co-founder". All of a sudden, my role is being questioned. Believe me, it is quite disheartening. Through all this, I had faith that one day, the real truth will indeed come out.

When you launched Wikipedia, did you imagine that it will be successful?
To be honest, I did believe that it was going to be successful, but the scale, I did not imagine.

Do you have any specific strategies for countries like India? How has been the response so far?
The response has been very encouraging. We have received quite many applications from India. In fact, quite a few of them are from the editors. The number is significant, say equal to the numbers from Australia. We are banking on India and are glad for the response so far.

Finally, when was the last time you met Wales or interacted with him?
(After much thought) Around one year ago; It has been a while, isn't it?

Page(s)   1