Citizendium was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view, even on topics relating to Wikipedia.WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject WikipediaWikipedia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Reference works, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Reference worksWikipedia:WikiProject Reference worksTemplate:WikiProject Reference worksReference works articles
Citizendium Statistics vs. Recent Changes pages[edit]
I'd note that while https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Statistics , accessed today, shows zero active users in the last 30 days, Citizentium is not entirely dead; https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges shows a few users are still editing the site as recently as today. Presumably their stats system is broken. — The Anome (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really appropriate to add commentary about the site's recent status based on the primary source of Wikimedia's recent contributions page? I would argue no, so I am reverting this for now. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me either way, but the Decline section already used a few like that (citing RC or site statistics), which isn't so unusual for sites that self-report stats. – SJ +03:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly weren't the first to add this kind of content. I also see something similar was recently removed by @X-Editor (perhaps for the same reason? There was no edit summary). I think more similar content may need to be removed from the article. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]