»wikipedia«

Ulf von Rauchhaupt features in FAZ (26.1.2006) Web 2.0 ideas and identifies two categories where the so-called wisdom of the crowds sums up for a better knowledge: an Ebay-style and a Wikipedia-style mechanism. With Ebay an economic supply and demand scheme leads to the best price, a statistical average by the many users. With Wikipedia, statistically, mistakes average out. But there are further problems like the credibility of sources. Rauchhaupt comes to the conclusion that Web 2.0 applications are powerful tools to foster knowledge but they only work with a sound base of (public funded) science.
BTW: Rauchhaupt's article is essentially a Web 2.0 product as Internet users could add comments and inspiration to a pre-print web version of his article scheduled for print in the daily FAZ.

Eventually the new world adopted the metric unit measurement system from the old, at least for Nasa's moon exploration projects. Keep in mind that there were problems in recent space projects because different suppliers used different measurement systems. What also pleased me is that Nasa refers in the weblink section of its news release to Wikipedia as an explanatory source of the metric system.

Again, anybody uses Wikipedia for a rapid reference. But how do you know about reliability and quality? Now, Nature editors and scientists surveyed science articles of the encyclopedia and report at Nature online (14.12.2005) that it "comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries." Nice to know. Let's go back to work, using Wikipedia and Google.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html