Since this blog had chronicled a debate on Wikipedia about sources, I had my antennae up for just the point you are making: “our citations need to be to places that people can trust implicitly.”

I’m fascinated that the New York Times was cited by John Broughton during the #nihwiki event as an implicitly trustworthy source. Are there any online-only publications which meet that standard? Where do we draw the line? I love the Grey Lady, but I also think facts exist elsewhere than in traditional media outlets.

The essay remind me of Kevin Kelly’s posts also very interesting.

The only thing I would push back a little on is the phrasing of the Scientology/Wikipedia issue like a “war”. This seems very interested in conflict. I think Wikipedia would culturally deny a conflict even if the other party wanted it. Of course just because both sides don’t think of it like a conflict doesn’t mean it isn’t one, and this is certainly a consideration for hierarchies interacting with adhocracies.

One of the things I do with Wikipedia is answer emails sent to the contact address (copyright violations, questions, etc). One of the things that is most striking is how incredulous people are when faced with the fact that Wikipedia isn’t a hierarchy. They know that it’s not at some level, but they still deep down feel that there are people in charge who can tell other people what to do without convincing them.

It is sometimes difficult for hierarchies to interact with Wikipedia, (although in my opinion that is the key role of the Foundation) but I don’t think it is nearly as hard for individuals to. That’s why things like this NIH academy are so great, explaining it to people, who are also experts, is very useful.

@Gilles
I don’t think anyone disputes that ACOR and other healthcare forums are of value. Obviously a group of 2,000 people with a rare medical condition is of incredible scientific value. NIH and NCI would certainly be wise to use these forums to the fullest potential, which I don’t think they do yet. What I’m saying though, is that Wikipedia is different from the NIH. Wikipedia is not doing scientific research. ACOR might lead an NIH researcher to do a study, or may do a study directly on ACOR data, *that* study would be ideal for Wikipedia. The “raw” ACOR data wouldn’t be though.

It’s not that Wikipedia is saying that ACOR and its data aren’t valuable, it just that it’s not in a format that a lay person can verify as fact. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, our citations need to be to places that people can trust implicitly. Linking to a forum post implies not that you trust the source, but that you trust the wikipedia editor. We don’t ask that you trust the random editor who added the link, as Broughton says above: a good citation is like a godclass weapon.

(sorry for the crazy long comment!)

So wikipedia is a massive web 2.0 application that doesn’t believe that web 2.0 applications are of value? Why is data entered in wikipedia valuable and reliable while data entered in a community of 2,000 people suffering from a rare condition is not? I would really love to hear from some of the people involved in the wikipedia academy. More than 10 years ago, the director of the National Cancer Institute and most of the communication department at this NIH institute understood the value of some medical online communities. What will it take for Wikipedia to do the same?

I’ll quote once again from Ted Eytan who says that “no communication is ever over” and “everything gets more accurate with more interaction.” That is clearly the driving philosophy here.

If you have a chance, check out Mark Pesce’s treatise on the mismatch of Wikipedia and the Church of Scientology. The last line is pretty powerful: “Sharing power is not an ideal of some utopian future; it’s the ground truth of our hyperconnected world.”

http://www.slideshare.net/TimVickers/tim-vickers-2009-nih-talk-on-wikipedia