Jaron Lanier has an article on Edge about Wikipedia where he makes the claim: 
Reading a Wikipedia entry is like reading the bible closely. There are faint traces of the voices of various anonymous authors and editors, though it is impossible to be sure.

Only Wikipedia has diff functionality available to anyone willing to click "history". 
I don't buy the idea that the Web is going to disappear and just become a metaverse. No, I think that the meta is the starting point for the individual relationship - we used to trust fate to bring people of shared interests together, but now we are codifying the process. This is something that Lanier picks up in his article. 
It doesn't follow that something like Wikipedia - which is intended only as a ready reference - is a bad thing (real research - scientific or humanistic - still requires the analysis of old-fashioned sources written by real people, usually on slices of dead tree matter). 
Here's an interesting idea. Take Wikipedia's content as of now and fork it. Put up a new Wikipedia which contains exactly the same content but lock it. Call it "Wikipedia Stable Edition". Turn off anonymous contributions and make it so that accounts must be started up with real names - and that someone phones up those real names to check who they are. The real names would be encouraged to put their qualifications up on their page, and someone would phone the universities and check them out. 
Comments | TrackBack 