Wikipedia co-founder announces rival project

happygeek 0 Tallied Votes 260 Views Share

Larry Sanger may have co-founded Wikipedia, and I say ‘may’ as Jimmy Wales seems to dispute this somewhat and prefers to refer to Sanger as merely an employee, but there is no doubt that it was Larry who came up with the name Wikipedia. A great name, it has to be said, but perhaps we all only have one great name inside us. Certainly that might explain why his latest project, a ‘progressive fork’ of Wikipedia with the distinctly naff name of Citizendium.

Described as being a “citizens' compendium of everything" Citizendium will be an experimental new wiki project, combining both public participation and expert guidance. And the ‘progressive fork’ thing means what exactly? Well according to Sanger not a great deal to begin with at least, as initially it will just be a mirror of Wikipedia. However, the hope is that people will soon start making changes to Citizendium articles, although if the original Wikipedia article changes then that will get updated as well (provided the Citizendium one hasn’t if you are still with me at this point.) But I have to say that I am slightly confused by the usage of ‘fork’ in this context as Wikipedia isn’t an open source application for crying out loud, it’s an online knowledge collective. Citizendium isn’t a fork as I understand the term, it isn’t anything yet because it has yet to launch but it certainly isn’t a fork: it is Wikipedia with a twist, namely that Sanger and his crew intend to re-write it. A true fork, in the open source sense, is when a project travels down divergent development paths because the original developers cannot agree on the same direction. But Sanger has had no involvement in Wikipedia since he resigned in March 2002, so surely this cannot hold water?

I might concede that there are some similarities, not least that when a project gets forked (excuse my French) then one or other of the resulting products usually withers and dies. The jury is out as to which is most likely to collapse in this case. Wikipedia has the advantage of critical mass and momentum, while Citizendium can argue that it won’t allow any Johnny Idiot to post anything about anything, it will bring responsibility and expertise to the table. The problem for Citizendium, as I see it, is that if it does succeed and prove to have a value, then there will be nothing to stop Wikipedia simply updating its content with that from Citizendium.

Confused? Me? You betcha…

Dani AI

Generated

A short, practical reality-check that fills gaps in the thread:

"Fork" means different things depending on whether you talk about software or content. MediaWiki (the software many wikis use) is free/open-source and can be forked in the software sense; that’s not the same as copying article text from one wiki to another. In plain terms: copying Wikipedia’s text is legally allowed if the license terms are followed, but it isn’t a code-style fork where two developer teams diverge from the same repository. (en.wikipedia.org)

Licensing is the critical detail people here are missing. Wikimedia content was originally GFDL-licensed and—after a community process—migrated to Creative Commons share‑alike terms (implementations in 2009), with a later move to CC BY‑SA 4.0 in 2023. Those dates and relicensing rules determine what can be copied, how attribution must be given, and whether content can be re‑licensed. A "mirror" or "progressive fork" must preserve license notices and attribution. (meta.wikimedia.org)

On the Citizendium point: the project deliberately mixed imported Wikipedia text with newly written material and introduced real‑names and expert approval. Larry Sanger discussed the licensing tradeoffs and pointed out that individual contributors, not a single owner, control their copyrights—so license choices and compatibility (NC vs. SA vs. GFDL) matter in practice. That’s why calling Citizendium a straight "software fork" is misleading. (computerworld.com)

If anyone plans a similar project today, follow this checklist: choose a compatible license up front; preserve original attribution and license text; plan technical imports (Wikimedia XML dumps, Special:Export/Import or the API) and understand you may lose some provenance or history unless you handle dumps carefully; and design governance that attracts contributors—momentum, not just licensing, wins readers. (meta.wikimedia.org)

Notes tied to posts above: is right that open content can be copied; is right that the software is open‑source; ’s copyright worry is addressed by contributor licensing rules; and ’s "fork" suspicion is exactly why the distinction matters.

jwenting 1,905 duckman Team Colleague

The open content of wikipedia is the data, therefore if you take that data and republish it under a different name you're forking it.

Dani 5,664 The Queen of DaniWeb Administrator Featured Poster

Wikimedia, the wiki application which powers Wikipedia, is open source AFAIK.

It can be downloaded here: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/MediaWiki

ManicCW 3 Junior Poster in Training

But isn't wiki data protected by copyright or something?

Dani 5,664 The Queen of DaniWeb Administrator Featured Poster

As I understand it, wiki content is owned by everybody who contributes to it. It's open source, in a sense.

impala_07 0 Newbie Poster

Wiki is open source and user runned.



http://picturevine.com/

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.