Despite its claim to Enlightenment principles and neutrality, Sanger has clear political biases which are expressed in his stated policies about Citizendium. Ethnic studies and Gender studies scholars have been repeatedly challenged by Sanger to prove that their disciplines have worth, and they are subject to a level of scrutiny not visited upon scholars in disciplines Sanger considers to be legitimate.

As a result, an entry like “African American Literature” is subject to political manipulation: African Americanist scholars who attempted to engage in revision of the original Wikipedia article were challenged on such basic notions as the existence of an “African diaspora”.

In the field of African American studies, the fact of the African diaspora is well-established, though the nature of that diaspora is subject to lively debate. Sanger’s declaration that the scholars who represent majority opinion in the field are “biased” or “political” is suspect, especially when the claim of bias is visited primarily on disciplines in which women and people of color make up the majority of scholars. The biases of scholars in fields that are made up of a majority of white, male scholars are emphatically not a concern to Sanger.

You are welcome to stop by my blog and read a lengthier analysis of the problem, along with the substantive comments that have been posted.

Quand la politique rattrape le média 2.0.
Passionnant le sujet de Ségolène et du tirage au sort. Il pose la question de : comment devient-on un expert ? Et je me pose la question : comment cela s’applique-t-il dans les médias 2.0 ?…

I find Jimmy rather annoying (his childish ‘correction’ of the article about himself showed how little he really ‘gets’ Wikipedia), and Larry is also frustrating - Wikipedia, however, is an amazing success, and I’ll be putting my effort into improving that, but as I said at the start, good luck Citizendium - I’d be happy to help copy accross improvements.

Why the question mark, you are reminding me of Fox News. They are famous for the usage of the question mark when pushing a point and not really a question.

Wikipedia is made so anyone can have access and modify code. Thats whats so unique about it. If Citizendium modified that to only select users, they are essentially just another CMS/blog, and we have too many of thoughs. Thank you Citizendium, but bugger off.

That’s how you decide who an expert is. Not on their opinion, but on whether they can stick to facts, and fairly represent differing viewpoints.

NPOV doesn’t mean you can’t have an opinion. If Citizendium can stick to NPOV with very opinionated editors, it will do us all a huge service. Even wikipedia can win, by re-incorporating articles.

Are there other existing wiki technologies that allow a ‘moderator’ to manage the information posted to the wiki itself. Is the technology of what I understand this wiki to present, itself unique, or is it the concept?

Here is our podcast for Monday, September 18th, 2006. Today we discuss, a possible new Wikipedia endeavor, a partnership between AOL and Intel, a new Microsoft Office suite for the Mac and some speculation about something new from Google.
For those of…