I hope they find some link editors soon:

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Sanger/Desktop/Citizendium/Textop/textop.org/cit/fundamentals.html

or maybe they just don't understand the basics of hyperlinking.

O_o
Maybe I'm just being snarky, but what a clunky name that is. "Citizendium." Nothing, NOTHING, will ever take Wikipedia's place in my heart.

Haha. I came to post "Reason it will fail— Citizendium sounds crappier than Wikipedia."

Would Wikipedia be better if it solicited guidance from academics and other specialists?

Yes. Yes it would. The only arguments I've heard against this are political and have nothing to do with accuracy and building a fundamentally more useful and trustworthy encyclopedia.

This will be good for the scientific articles (have seen some woeful ones on wikipedia), but wikipedia is great for it's scope, which I can't imagine Citizendium ever replicating. It'll never have articles like this.

That is a butt ugly website.

(Wikipedia is pretty ugly too)

I hope Marie Antoinette marries Dolph Lundgren this time.

Smart Dalek wins.

Ooooooooooohhhhhhhh - Offtopic, but Dr Who series 3: Only 6 days to go.

if it's not broken, don't fix it! *mumbles*

I continue to love Wikipedia, but I have nothing against Citizendium.

As for the experts question, I personally don't think it makes as much difference as ... well ... experts think. I actually think it would be a bigger problem for Wikipedia to have a small number of experts, and thus supposedly a greater responsibility, and yet very little change, statistically, in how many errors and deliberate vandalisms there are.

And I still maintain that one learns more about a topic by participating than by merely using it as a resource. This is the greatest strength it has, in fact. Yet it's little remarked on -- it's always seen as output.

I love how Jimbo hates when Sanger gets called the Co-Founder. It's probably my favorite thing about Wikipedia ever.

Wikipedia Co-Founders Feud Over Facts About Site's History.