http://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124 I tried to post a comment to Dare Obasanjo's blog post: How Do We Get Rid of Lies on Wikipedia, without success (due to my attempts to add links to the post etc..). Hence a Blog style response instead. Dare: I have been through the Wikipedia fires a few times. If you recall that I actually triggered the early Web 2.0 Wikipedia article. along the following lines: Asked one of my staff to start a post with the sole intention of defining Web 2.0 properly I then attempted to edit the initial post I left a typo re. REST Got set on Fire etc... (see very beginning of Wikipedia Web 2.0 history page) As annoying as the experience above was, I didn't find this inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia (i.e. open contribution and discourse). I felt, at the time, that a lot of historical data was being left in place for future reference etc.. In addition, the ultimate aim of creating an evolving Web 2.0 document did commence albeit some distance from &quot;modern man&quot; re. accuracy and meaningfulness as of my last read (today). Even closer to home, I repeated the process above re. Virtuoso Universal Server. This basically ended up being a live case study on how you handle the Wikipedia NPOV conundurum. Just look at the Virtuoso Universal Server Talk Pages to see how the process evolved (the key was Virtuoso's lineage and it's proximity to the very DBMS platform upon which Wikipedia runs i.e MySQL). Bearing in mind the size and magnitude of Microsoft, there should be no reason why Microsoft's &quot;Microsoft Digital Caucus&quot; ( legions of Staff, MSDN members, Integrators, and other partners) can't simply go into Wikipedia and participate in the edit and discourse process. Truth cannot be surpressed! At best, it can only be temporarily delayed :-) Even more so on the Web! Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:10:00 GMTVirtuoso Universal Server 08.03.3334Kingsley Uyi Idehenhttp://www.openlinksw.com:443/weblog/public/images/vbloglogo.gifhttp://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124I have seen the future and it's full of Linked Data! :-)8831 http://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124#4487http://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124#4487kidehen@openlinksw.comThu, 25 Jan 2007 21:03:50 GMTRichard,<br><br>Yes re. &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest"&gt;WP:COI&lt;/a&gt;, but the point I am making is that discourse and editing are part of the Wikipedia spirit. If you take WP:COI verbatim then you might as well dump the Web 2.0 article in the bin :-)<br><br>The Virtuoso article was assaulted (literally) and rejected initially, and then someone from a far (ex. employee in a company that Orri worked in) while writing a totally unrelated article made a connection with Virtuoso and this ultimately lead to approval etc..<br><br>Microsoft has a large caucus, which implies that would have legions of people who can edit and contribute (from afar). At the same time this would, and should not, prohibit Microsoft staff from update the base document. <br><br>My experience with Wikipedia (over time) unveiled this often misunderstood aspect of Wikipedia. The general perception of Wikipedia is that it is inherently contradictory (which is a misunderstanding IMHO). Wikipedia eventually contains the facts, but the process can take a lot of time.<br><br><br><br /> http://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124#4486http://www.openlinksw.com:443/blog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/blog/?id=1124#4486richard@cyganiak.deThu, 25 Jan 2007 19:55:05 GMTKingsley, you *are* aware of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest">WP:COI</a>, are you?