<img src=http://news.google.com/news?imgefp=58iJ8-Su0awJ&imgurl=www.itproportal.com/media/images/155/cebit-future-parc.jpg width=80 height=80 alt="" border=1>
<img alt="" height="1" width="1">Scientist Launch Worldwide Bid To Make Wikipedia More Accountable ...
ITProPortal, UK -29 minutes ago
A poster presented at the 11th Annual Scientific Meeting for the European Association for Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry (EACLPP) in Saragossa, ...
View the article
I had some trouble understanding the point of this article; perhaps something important lost in the translation from the original Saragossian.
I could be wrong -- in fact, I probably am wrong -- but I interpret this to mean that Dr. Marley is suggesting that organizations publish an authoritative set of facts about themselves, which when laid up against the Wikipedia version of facts, would provide the world a handy assessment of how accurate the Wikipedia article is about the organization.
I dunno.
Anyone else have any ideas?
QUOTE
To produce verifiable information communities and organisations will first need to assemble a set of standards about themselves.
They will then be required to publish these standards in a verifiable source such as an online newsletter, or via an external source such as a journal, article or community newspaper. This information can then be used in the construction of a Wikipedia profile.
This auditing of Wikipedia comes as a real breakthrough. Information appearing on the site must be verifiable.
By conducting and publishing research about their profile, Communities and organisations will not only produce useful information about themselves but by going through the proper process that information will be verified and so be of much greater value to Wikipedia users as whole.
The image of different organisations can only benefit from raising their profile in this way. These standards can also be used give a numerical marker for the accuracy of an article on Wikipedia as well as providing a tool for measuring the neutrality of the article.
They will then be required to publish these standards in a verifiable source such as an online newsletter, or via an external source such as a journal, article or community newspaper. This information can then be used in the construction of a Wikipedia profile.
This auditing of Wikipedia comes as a real breakthrough. Information appearing on the site must be verifiable.
By conducting and publishing research about their profile, Communities and organisations will not only produce useful information about themselves but by going through the proper process that information will be verified and so be of much greater value to Wikipedia users as whole.
The image of different organisations can only benefit from raising their profile in this way. These standards can also be used give a numerical marker for the accuracy of an article on Wikipedia as well as providing a tool for measuring the neutrality of the article.
I could be wrong -- in fact, I probably am wrong -- but I interpret this to mean that Dr. Marley is suggesting that organizations publish an authoritative set of facts about themselves, which when laid up against the Wikipedia version of facts, would provide the world a handy assessment of how accurate the Wikipedia article is about the organization.
I dunno.
Anyone else have any ideas?
As Socrates once remarked, "The unexamined learning organization is not worth joining."
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 30th June 2008, 8:31am) 
I don't want to sidetrack the discussion of the topic of this thread, but that learning organization article (born on January 13, 2005) is quite awful. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.
Greg
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 30th June 2008, 5:28am)
I could be wrong -- in fact, I probably am wrong -- but I interpret this to mean that Dr. Marley is suggesting that organizations publish an authoritative set of facts about themselves, which when laid up against the Wikipedia version of facts, would provide the world a handy assessment of how accurate the Wikipedia article is about the organization.
I dunno.
Anyone else have any ideas?
Yes, that's right: the organization would publish "metadata" about itself that could be then peer-reviewed and published in a journal.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 30th June 2008, 8:36am)
QUOTE(Moulton @ Mon 30th June 2008, 8:31am)
As Socrates once remarked, "The unexamined learning organization is not worth joining."
I don't want to sidetrack the discussion of the topic of this thread, but that learning organization article (born on January 13, 2005) is quite awful. Not encyclopedic in tone at all.That's because it was not written by members of a well-examined learning organization.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.