Today, one of the co-founders of Wikipedia Larry Sanger, has announced that he is creating a new entity called Citizendium as an offshoot of Wikipedia. Citizendium will be different from Wikipedia in the sense that Citizendium will have individuals acting as “judges” or “referees” for many different topics who will have the final say for a particular entry. We’ve already seen TechCrunch and Crunchnotes weigh in. So has Nick Carr. I’m not sure if they’re all missing the point.

Citizendium may be one of a few markers that reveal the evolution of user-driven content.

Wikipedia has been marked in the past with controversy, as although there are some limitations, virtually anyone can create an entry on something, and virtually anyone can edit them. For particularly contentious issues (say, “George W. Bush”, or “abortion”), it creates challenges as one or more parties can end up changing a post to support their particular biases — rather than, say, creating an entry with a balanced view on things.

What is fascinating is how this forking or offshoot may represent one step in the evolution of user driven social content sites — one that started with Slashdot, moved on to Netscape, and perhaps, continues with Citizendium. Reddit and Digg also have their roles, but they seem to represent the other end of the spectrum as we shall see.

Slashdot (and Fark, really) represents user-driven content, inasmuch as users submit news stories to editors. Editors act in an ad hoc fashion to choose which stories to profile, and may choose not to profile stories as they see fit. From a content point of view, Slashdot, the grandfather of tech/geek sites, clearly has an editorial board, which controls the sort of stories which make it to their front page.

Digg, on the other hand, operates on the other end of the spectrum. Digg, bills itself as “completely” user driven, where anyone can contribute stories. Anyone can promote a story as well; if a story gets enough “diggs” (promotions), then it will get more notice. An algorithm, however, decides which stories reach the front page(a la Google), and its based on a number of factors — including the individuals who submitted the story, the time of the day the story was submitted, who has promoted the story, and the speed of the promotion.

With Netscape and Citizendium, I think we’re seeing a response to the darker side of the Web2.0 Netscape, in its most recent incarnation, is both an imitator and evolution of Digg in some respects. While it also delivers user driven “news” in the sense that anyone can submit the news, they clearly have editors which Digg alleges it does not have. Editors check news stories, and they also are active in the community as well. Whereas Slashdot’s editors act in an adhoc fashion (guiding all story submissions to the front page), Netscape’s “Anchors” act in a sort of post-hoc fashion. They only see news stories after they’ve been submitted. They then prune them or edit them as they see fit.

What’s fascinating is where Citizendium fits in.

As the Web2.0 user driven social content sites change and evolve, one wonders if the way Wikipedia “forked off” Citizendium is really like Digg “forking off” Netscape. Is there — will there — be a greater push towards bigger editorial control?
One of the greatest alleged strengths of the Web2.0 is the collaborative effort of internet users; the “wisdom of crowds”. Clearly, sites like Digg, Netscape and Wikipedia are set up to take advantage of that power to create a product or service greater than any single person could achieve on their own.

With Netscape and Citizendium, I think we’re seeing a response to the darker side of the Web2.0, which, ironically, may be a product of its own success.

They seem to be the answer, to their owners at any rate, to the question, “Is the only way to prevent manipulation of these sites editorial control?” Will these sorts of sites evolve and change along side their “completely” user driven sites, or do they represent a new breed of user-driven content sites altogether?

Wait for the next post in this series to answer that question. :)

Next Post: Gaming the Web2.0 — The Rise of Editorial Control?