Re: Wikipedia?

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

Karl seems to share the view of former Encyclopeadia Britannica
editor-in-chief Robert McHenry, who said that Wikipedia is like a
public restroom -- you never know who touched it last.

Actually, I think there is some evidence that Wikipedia may in
some cases by as accurate as the Encyclopeadia Britanica.
Undeniably, it already more complete and rapidly updated. (It
already has a biography of Anna Nicole Smith, for example--not
that anyone on this scholarly list serve would ever read such a
thing, of course).

Another less formal measure of Wikipedia's credibility and rapid
self-correction can be found in Esquire magazine writer AJ
Jacob's 2005 article on Wikipedia. As an experiment, Jacobs
posted a deliberately error-filled article. Within 2 days, it had
been edited 373 times. The before-and-after articles are at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DWikipedia:Improve_this_article_about_Wikipedia&diff=3D23808314&oldid=3D23607200. Jacobs came away from
the experience a Wiki convert.

I don't think we should be quick to dismiss community based peer
review in scholarly communication. It will be very interesting to
see how PLoS One fares. Hopefully, the experience of that
publication and other community-based titles will give us key
metrics such as the size of the community needed to ensure that
the collective work represents a gathering of collective wisdom
rather than a pooling of shared ignorance.

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
pbanks@bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/