New Mobility in the Wikipedia

The New Mobility/ Wikipedia Workbook

Wikipedia Help Desk

This is the latest wrinkle in our long term battle to build up and support 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" -- 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 it. 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, that the result would be a chaotic mess. But it does work? Click here for one view.

But before you actually get involved in this dynamic editing process, we suggest that you give a careful look to their guidelines. You will see those at the top of the menu to your left (Wikipedia Help Desk).

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 - whipping it into shape

> > Click here and the carsharing entry will pop up in its own window. < <

This looks to us like a good start to attain an "encyclopedia quality" entry, but it's 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
Resources

And finally, what about your entering your program, group or institution in the Wikipedia as well (with references possibly to Wikipedia on Carsharing 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 neutrality; you would certainly not want to fall short of them.)

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 neutrality; you would certainly not want to fall short of them.)

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 - [[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html "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.