The Commons and the Wikipedia

Collaborative problem-solving The Wikipedia Workbook

Now, for your attention & inputs:
1.
2. (own window) 3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Using the Wikipedia

Español

Français

Italiano

Português

[ Opens in own window ]

Please note: This page has been written with multiple Wikipedia links to help familiarize you with the usefulness of this new collaborative tool. Kindly check out below the section/page for your particular program. Each pops up in its own window. (If your monitor is large enough, it's useful to keep both your original window and the WP reference window in front of you at the same time for a rich read.)

This is the latest wrinkle in our continuing long term push here at The Commons to find ways to build up an informal international expert consortium to "put our brains" together on our self-selected sustainability targets, for the benefit of all in a world in which old ideas and old and bad practices die hard. It's called a Wikipedia, and at the end of the day is nothing more (hah!) than a peer-produced, expert, 100% open encyclopedia. ("Wiki-wiki" is the Hawaiian word for quick. "Wikis" such as this have been around for more than a decade since their invention by Portland Pattern Repository in March 1995)

The Wikipedia is a free-content, collaborative, internet-based encyclopedia, made up of individual (but interconnected) entries. Anyone can create an entry, and anyone else can come along and edit existing entries. The intent is to tap the power of the general internet community's knowledge and the desire to share that knowledge, to build a free, high-quality, comprehensive online encyclopedia. At first blush, it might seem like this could not work, and that the result would be a chaotic mess. But it does work. Hang on just one minute.

Why this is important for us

Because all the various programs under The Commons intended to support the push to sustainability , have from the outset been organized as what we call Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks. (The original term offered by Mikoto Usui at our founding meeting at the Abbaye de Royaumont just north of Paris in 1974 was "invisible college".) The idea is that the accomplishment of each program is thus the result not of the efforts of one person or group in one place bounded by a limited mandate, set of interests, resources and perspectives, but the rich fruits of an entirely open collaborative association, guided only by the shared idea that the world needs something like this, at least in the one bit of the planetary patch we have collectively decided to cultivate together.

Over the years we have sought out and used a growing array of tools to enable this collaborative process, starting out in the mid seventies with all the old media and ways of doing things, but already in 1981 jumping up to email, followed by the first newsgroup in 1986, videoconferencing links in 1993, the first website in 1994, the various group fora and cafes two years later, and this long list goes on. The idea of out now working jointly with the Wikipedia is the next step in this ever-richer group work process; it will not be the last.

But before you actually get involved in this dynamic editing process, we suggest that you give a careful look to their guidelines. A good place to start is with their About page, which is a fast well-organized read. Next, How to edit will just about get you ready to jump in for yourself. You'll see.

Wikipedia and accuracy (Be sure you look under the bed)

Is the Wikipedia just more eye-candy e-junk? There is a lot of it out there so this is an entirely fair suspicion and perfectly reasonable point of departure. But in a recent expert-led investigation carried out by the respected science journal Nature - "Wikipedia vs. Encyclopedia Britannica Internet encyclopaedias go head to head" -- in which the two were tested head to head on a sample of science entries, the Natures team concluded this:

The exercise revealed numerous errors in both encyclopedias, but among 42 entries tested, the difference in accuracy was not particularly great: the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three. The team also surveyed more than 1,000 Nature authors and found that although more than 70% had heard of Wikipedia and 17% of those consulted it on a weekly basis, less than 10% help to update it. The steady trickle of scientists who have contributed to articles describe the experience as rewarding, if occasionally frustrating. Greater involvement by scientists would lead to a "multiplier effect". Most entries are edited by enthusiasts, and the addition of a researcher can boost article quality hugely. "Experts can help write specifics in a nuanced way".

Where does this leave us? Well at the end of the day I don't trust Wikipedia any more than I trust any single source of news or information, including the Encyclopedia Britannica. But I don't trust it less either. We're back to an existential life. In the final analysis it's you, your lonely good judgment and your willingness to cross-check anything from multiple sources that must rule the day. Sound like too much work? No problem. Just relax and let the others do the heavy hauling.

And now if you are still with us, we invite you to check out the status of the entry in the particular focus area that may have brought you to The Commons in the first place.

Key New Mobility/related entries (Following all pop up in own window)

You will find more on the WP, but the above provides you with some good starting points on our important topic.

Let's start with the New Moblity Agenda.

> > Click here and the latest draft version will pop up in its own window. < <

We invite you to have a good look -- and then if you will either go in and make the corrections and additions you feel to be necessary -- or otherwise pass them on to us so that we can handle from here. You will quickly see the weak spots and places where clearer and more authoritative statements are required to make this an "encyclopedia quality" entry. Especial attention is needed in the sections:

Best practice examples
History
External Links (might also be better organized)

For the rest, it is that introductory definition that is still a possible weak point -- but you will let us know that. Also, it would be good to have critical views as well.

Next, on to "Sustainable Transportation".

This you may find somewhat surprising, but defining "sustainable transportation" fully and fairly is perhaps not quite so straight-forward as one might think. Moreover, the view that we have placed here to get this going is quite contentious, which we feel is justified given the way in which all the indicators are going. But the challenge is to provide a balanced appraisal for the journalists, researchers, activist and others who come here looking for guidance. Thanks for pitching in.

> > Click here for "Sustainable Transportation will pop up in its own window.<<

You will see; it needs work. But if we don't do it, who will?

The Carsharing entry (our best to date but still in need of more work)

Click the language version you wish to consult just below and the corresponding entry will pop up in its own window.

Dutch

English

French

German

Italian

We, collectively, are off to a good start to help create an "encyclopedia quality" entry, but it will remain only a start until you get into to it as well. So we invite you to have a good hard look at the whole thing -- and then if you will either go in and make the corrections and additions you feel to be necessary -- or otherwise pass them on to us so that we can handle from here. Your especial attention will be welcome in the sections:

Goals, Objectives, Achievements
How it works
The important links to the overall mobility arrangements in any place
Resources

And finally, what about your entering your program, group or institution in the Wikipedia as well (with references possibly to Wikipedia on Carsharing, whatever national or regional grouping you may be affiliated with, and possibly the New Mobility Agenda. Are you already in the Wikipedia? If not, and if you think that the world should know more about what you are up to, this is perhaps the time to make a short neutral entry. (Keep your eye on their guidelines for presentation and neutrality; you would certainly not want to fall short of them.)

Land Value Tax/ Value Capture

As you will see this entry is still very much in progress, but you may already have some thoughts for us on this. Here is how you get there:

> > Click here and the entry for the entry as it stands will pop up in its own window.<<

It was out thought that some mutually useful synergies might come out of this 'coupling' (if I may). And if you wish to dig into this a bit further, I suggest that you consult and possibly add as well to the "Discussions", the back stage of the entry itself and, in our view, also a good place to hang out and learn.

Wikipedia on Car Free Days

As you will see this entry is still very much in progress and needs work, not only to make it a better and more accurate read but also to better correspond with their crieria for a strong encyclopedic entry.

> > Click here and the entry for the entry on Car Free Days will pop up in its own window.<<

Again, let us know how you think this can be improved or rendered more accurate -- or if you wish go in and do it yourself. You may find it an interesting learning experience -- and, like making a success of a CFD, it also helps to be able to listen and adjust. It's a rather delicate collaborative process. Be sure you check out their editing routines carefully.

We would also direct your attention toward the following two related entries, which can only profit from your interest and collaboration:

> > Click here for entry on entry on Carfree Cities<<
> > Click here for entry on entry on the Carfree Movement<<

(Should possibly they be combined into a single entry?)

Now on to The Commons (the hardest nut of all).

As you will see this entry is still very much in progress, but you may already have some thoughts for us on this:

> > Click here and the entry for The Commons will pop up in its own window.<<

It is closely related to our entry in progress for Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks, the present draft of which you will find here.

Other related Wikipedia entries for your information and attention.

You may wish to check the following related entries from here as well. Once again your participation and comments/suggestions are cordially invited. Solicited in fact.

And then finally there is this last one, in which we are trying with the help of all those who are joining in via this entry of the Wikipedia to get at some of the dynamics that underlie this and virtually all of the work of The Commons, which is in itself no more and no less than a Self-Organizing Collaborative Network struggling to make its way.

Self-Organizing Collaborative Networks

Entering your program, institution, group

And then there is the matter of your program, group or institution: Are you already in the Wikipedia? If not, and if you think that the world should know more about what you are up to, this is perhaps the time to make a short neutral entry. (Keep your eye on their guidelines for editing help and neutrality; you would certainly not want to fall short of them.)