Some related posts from Technorati and Google.

 [Roughtype.com] Rough Type: Nicholas Carr's Blog: Sanger forks Wikipedia: The Citizendium will begin as a "fork" of Wikipedia, taking all of Wikipedia's current articles and then editing them under a new model that differs substantially from the model used by what Sanger calls the "arguably dysfunctional" Wikipedia community. "First," says Sanger, in explaining the primary differences, "the project will invite experts to serve as editors, who will be able to make content decisions in their areas of specialization, but otherwise working shoulder-to-shoulder with ordinary authors.

 [Cadenhead.org] Workbench: Wikipedia Founder Looks Out for Number 1: A rule suggestion: In the same way as bloggers at Bloggercon are discouraged from making vendor pitches, paritipants in this event should be discouraged from talk about entries on Wikipedia in which they are personally involved. (Including biographical entries or those for books or computer programs they have written.) Make the subject Wikipedia itself and its processes.

 [Many.corante.com] K5 Article on Wikipedia Anti-elitism. Many-to-Many:: I think that the Wikipedia articles on foreign policy-related topics have been especially fair and balanced, and have helped to give a more balanced perspective on these subjects and issues than that which has been portrayed in the pro-state, anti-liberty media, and which has been promoted by the government. The advent of the online community and the information superhighway since the mid-1990s has done wonders for the cause of traditional conservatism and pro-liberty causes, and has allowed so many of us to get a great deal of information and insight.

[Larrysanger.org] Larry Sanger: "Hume's External World Skepticism in Context," Hume Society Annual Meeting, Park City, Utah, July 25-29, 1995.

[Dufoundation.org] Constructing the Digital Universe: Still, Lanier is on to something here.  It seemed to me from fairly early on in the development of Wikipedia that people were liking Wikipedia for the wrong reasons.  What’s great about it is not that it produces an averaged view, an averaged view that is somehow better (as some people, amazingly, actually seem to think) than an authoritative statement by people who actually know the subject.  That’s just not it at all.  What’s great about Wikipedia is the fact that it is a way to organize enormous amounts of labor for a single intellectual purpose.  As I’ve said before, the virtue of strong collaboration, as demonstrated by projects like Wikipedia, is that it represents a new kind of “industrial revolution,” where what is reorganized is mental effort.  It’s the sheer efficiency of strongly collaborative systems that is so great, not their ability to produce The Truth.  Just how to eke The Truth out of such a strongly collaborative system is an unsolved, and (the Digital Universe’s efforts notwithstanding) largely unaddressed, problem.

Reflected tags on Technorati: Blog, Clayshirky, Ebook, Kostenlos, Digitalrights, Openpedia.org