(1) Wikipedia is generally fine for uncontroversial and factual information; it is absolutely useless for controversial and difficult topics, which means almost all issues in social science and currrent affairs. Most university teachers [including myself] forbid their students to use it.

Great! Sums is up perfectly. I like Wikipedia for it's factual information. I have edited some references, always with official documentation, which have been obvious fantasy. I'll have to check out Citizendium...they should hire my boyfriend, he knows EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING...sounds like a good alternative on subjects which are evolving or controversial.

Heather, rancho palos verdes, usa

Wikipedia is truly democratic, which means its inclusive, ie. like all the myriad strangers you run into. There's also discussions where people discuss things even with the vandals. Therefore it has a value that no other encylopedia has. Finally the reader decides what to believe in.

I rather have all opinions before I decide then have "experts" decide what I should first hear. We all know what money can do to the media, so lets keep wikipedia democratic. Today the biggest fear is to get tainted information from powerful lobbies.

Citizendium's major conundrum is after all the high talk it wants to take all the material of wikipedia and start with that instead of building its own.

Alan, Berkeley, USA

Almost all of my problems with Wikipedia have not been with the "tyranny of the masses," but with the tyranny of the Wikipedia administrators.

A lot of people do not want to waste time researching, writing, and editing Wikipedia articles when: (1) their work is likely to be censored, (2) many students are not allowed to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative reference, and (3) Wikipedia has such a bad reputation in general. I have been tempted to make some non-controversial edits of Wikipedia articles but then decided that I shouldn't bother because Wikipedia is such a bad encyclopedia.

One of Wikipedia's big mistakes was trying to look like a printed encyclopedia. Online encyclopedias can contain much larger numbers of controversial items than printed encyclopedias because online encyclopedias can instantly link to external sites where controversial items are discussed and debated.

Larry Fafarman, Los Angeles,

To comment briefly on the article and also in reply to some readers' comments here:

(1) Wikipedia is generally fine for uncontroversial and factual information; it is absolutely useless for controversial and difficult topics, which means almost all issues in social science and currrent affairs. Most university teachers [including myself] forbid their students to use it.

(2) Citizendium editors act as individual experts, whose opinions are not controlled by anyone. Debates and arguments can be seen on article Talk pages, as with Wikipedia.

(3) Citizendium has a Neutrality Policy, which guarantees representation of differing viewpoints which have any scientific credibility. Additionally, we try to identify divergences between expert and popular opinion.

(4) Although work is still in a preliminary phase, check out our Approved Articles and see what you think..

CZ Editor and Editorial Council Member

Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Athens, Greece

Jimmy Wales should know that there wasn't a World Cup in 1984......

Steve, Trowbridge, UK

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I couldn't suppress a chuckle last week when reading a Wikipedia article on Jainism which simply gave up at one point and reproduced a few paragraphs lifted straight from arch-enemy Britannica. I suppose one should be grateful they actually bothered to acknowledge the source.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Although it makes sense to have expert moderators to vet this new data base thats available to the public, I'm rather concerned that it could be politically controlled by those in power. We've all seen the blatant distortion of the facts over Iraq by both New Labour and the Bush administration thats still going on today and given the choice of a 'free for all' like wikipedia or an orwellian government controlled encyclopedia, I'd stick with the later. Where you have many diverse comments theres a better chance to sift the facts from the fiction than just government spin.

Mike, Alicante, Spain

Wikipedia has risen and has now begun its fall. As with most inspired movements, from Christianity to the counterculture, it began with a group of superior individuals; the resulting excellence attracted many more individuals with varying degrees of talent; and in the end, idiots, crazy people, and the downright criminal find it fertile ground for their work.

z, new haven, usa

The new Citizendium site (which will not take off with such a silly, cumbersome name) is merely an effort by "experts" i.e. the thought police to stamp out alternative views to their work that may appear, quite acceptably so, on Wikipedia. Of course, there are a few unscruplous hackers on Wikipedia but they can be smelled a mile off by anyone with an ounce of sense. What about all the experts who say that Wikipedia is astoundingly accurate most of the time and that far from being a victim of the "cult of the amateur" it is in fact benefitting from the "wisdom of the crowd".

Felicity, Cincinnati, Ohio

I'm glad to hear that this new project will be reliable (or the greater part of it). I was thinking too that the Wikipedia can't be reliable enough, and I had heard from others about mistakes in Wikipedia.
So, I wish the best for the new project.

Ernő Búzás, Odorheiu Secuiesc, Romania

To imagine that a project like Citizendium could "rival Wikipedia" is a bit like thinking that Wikipedia would be a rival to Google, or the Times website. It's just a misunderstanding of how the modern media works. If Citizendium is a success - and I hope it is - then Wikipedia will simply absorb it as another useful source, just as they currently reference all sorts of existing news and information websites.

The information you find on Wikipedia is a bit like the information you'll pick up from the regulars at your local pub - ie. a mixed bag of established fact, obscure trivia, and outlandish rumour. But very little of it is wholly useless, and as long as that's the case, Wikipedia will have a role. Papers like the Times have "rivals", because they're competing with other broadsheets to make sales. But Wikipedia doesn't need to compete with Citizenpedia. We can have both. Let a thousand obscure articles on Byzantine architecture bloom! (see http://tinyurl.com/ft989)

Richard Wilson, London,

No one won the World Cup in 1984, it wasn't played that year. It was played in 1982 and 1986, the winners being Italy and Argentina respectively. Oh dear.

Gavin Winton, London,