Ourpedia

A few weeks ago, I suggested that publishers, associations, experts and others should vet articles in Wikipedia and in essence create blessed versions of the open-source wealth of knowledge there. At the time, Fred Wilson called it the Red Hat Wikipedia. Now David Weinberger and Wikipedian SJ Klein sing the refrain:

Anyone could certify particular versions of particular articles as reliable. I could, you could, the American Association of Pediatrics could, because this doesn’t have to happen on the Wikipedia site. Dozens (hundreds?) of other sites already take Wikipedia’s content as their own, under Wikipedia’s Creative Commons license. So, why not encourage various authorities (personal or institutional) to create their own seals of Good Wiki Keeping, publishing a virtual slice through Wikipedia….

Not to mention that it would be a perfect example for my book about how knowledge is becoming miscellanized, and reclustered using different organizational principles.

  • Eric M

    Wikipedia definately needs vetting- I recently looked up a description of First Angle projection ( a way of viewing orientation in blueprints) versus Third Angle- The description was great- I just didn’t trust it-

    If someone from ANSI or SAE had signed off on it- I would have used it-

  • http://www.blinkpop.com Anonymoose

    I love wikipedia, even when it’s wrong.

    Check out this joint wikipedia/google search thingy
    I made for a home page.

  • http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/004323.html nofollow breaks blogs

    The problem is that even in tech areas there might be disagreements. ANSI might say something is correct, but ECMA might disagree. Faced with two respected standards bodies saying different things, which should the user choose?

    Related: see http://www.wikipediaclassaction.org/ That appears to have something to do with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OfficialWire