On 17 April 2010 14:42, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 April 2010 13:52, Eugene van der Pijll
<eugene(a)vanderpijll.nl> wrote:
David Gerard schreef:
> Clay Shirky was right: CZ collapsed under the
weight of its own bureaucracy:
>
http://many.corante.com/archives/2006/09/18/larry_sanger_citizendium_and_th…
Clay Shirky was wrong. He focussed on one part of
the CZ hierarchy: the
experts, and the amount of overhead that trying to recognize expertise would
cause. But there was no overhead, because experts never came to CZ.
He was right, I think, in noting that the bureaucracy was the problem.
The expert procedure was symptomatic of the dysfunctional attitude.
I disagree, I don't think bureaucracy was the problem. Citizendium
never got beyond a very small size and bureaucracy is only a problem
on a large scale - even if there is lots of bureaucracy in a small
group it is easy to navigate. It never took off because there was
never a reason for it to do so: Wikipedia was good enough.