With the 'Wisdom of Crowds' coming in so many variations it is important to understand how things are categorized. The advantages that are produced from 'Wisdom of Crowds', Surowiecki categorises as cognition, coordination and cooperation. Wikipedia itself has all these advantages from which to choose from, firstly cognition. The information processing stage of Wikipedia occurs as the article is written. With several mediators there is more chance for the information to be entered and edited correctly which results in far more succinct information. Coordination indicates the trust that people have in the people that are partaking in the editing process of the articles. Networks are formed throughout Wikipedia as people are brought together with common interests which exceed the limitations of Wikipedia. Also to form a wise crowd you need diverse opinions, independent opinions, decentralization and aggregation. All four of these factors are found in the Wikipedia medium. People are of course coming from across the globe so opinions are diverse. People do not actual know each other so their confidence to share their opinion is amplified. Does this mean however that all the voices in the article become one unified information front? Collaboration allows many different individuals to voice their opinion and this is why Wikipedia is the perfect version of 'Wisdom of Crowds'.

I think it is very astute of Potts to refer to the different generations as 'digital natives' and 'digital immigrants'. We (I include myself in the younger generation) have grown up in a world of constantly developing technology and have always been connected with people from across the globe. The older generation came from a world of no and therefore no World Wide Web. This is why now the 'digital natives' are more alert to the presence of online predators than actual everyday criminals. Wikipedia has become the battle ground between the two groups as the 'natives' battle to legitimize the information they can gather from Wikipedia whilst the 'immigrants' continue to argue that the information is untrustworthy. What will it take for either side to compromise and accept the other's point of view. Being a 'native' I agree that Wikipedia's information is accurate as I believe has been proven in many studies but I confess I have never read any of the actual findings from any studies.
If these studies are accurate then is that not proof enough to include Wikipedia as a credible information source? It is my belief that the 'immigrants' must begin to accept the world has changed from what they once knew and Wikipedia is here to stay.

To measure the usage of Wikipedia you can count how many people are actively editing a page and the amount of hits each article receives. This however does not take into account the amount of hours spent researching each subject and verifying the facts and figures presented in the articles. Figure 1 in the article shows how Wikipedia grew exponentially in terms of the size of the database and users of the actual site. We see that after 2002 Wikipedia grew to cover a far greater range of topics but the graph does not show how many more hours are put into the research behind the articles. The research may have been done before the invention of Wikipedia or even without Wikipedia in mind but it must be remembered that these hours go in to the site so they must be included. Wikipedia has allowed this information to be shared with more people across the globe. The information is collected by a group of people and they collaborate to create an article that is both accurate and detailed. This is why Wikipedia is so popular, because the information is not just provided by one person which allows for cross referencing between parties by using the the other tools available through Wikipedia.

The poster child of collaboration? A bold statement but is it that far off the truth? Every day Wikipedia helps people around the world find information that is both detailed and related to the topic they have searched. The modern internet is filled with incorrect and purposely misleading information that users can freely access. The user has no idea that the information they are receiving is incorrect so it is quite often trusted. Wikipedia's system of article moderators allows the information to be supplied by anyone but filtered by people considered to be well educated in that chosen field. This means that the information is not as random as other information available throughout World Wide Web. The progression in the Web 2.0 era has been at an exponential rate and Wikipedia has been at the fore front of the revolution as it allows users of the World Wide Web to contribute which is what separates Web 1.0 and web 2.0. So I don't completely agree with the idea that Wikipedia is the poster child of collaboration, however I would suggest that it is the poster child of the Web 2.0 era as it encompasses all that makes the new era so exciting.

Corporate knowledge pertains to the inside information that companies need to operate. Internal wikis allow companies to coordinate and collaborate their internal information to streamline the normal business processes. This also allows businesses to spread their business network across many areas and still work cohesively on a common task. Wikipedia can be considered one enormous organization that serves the single purpose of supplying information to the entire globe through the detailed and yet at the same time brief articles. Global networks like this are true representations of collaboration and how steps can be taken in an effort to allow and access the knowledge of crowds. The knowledge of crowds is an idea that there is a bank of information that can be attained by taking the small pieces that each person in the crowd holds. Can corporations use wikis effectively to store information? Who holds the power? With any type of wiki it is important to remember that someone must be in charge of moderating and filtering the information. Or if a wiki is used inside a corporation does that remove the need for a person in charge of filtering? Either way a wiki can be an effective tool in allowing businesses to collaborate without the need to be in the same geographic location.

This is an extremely interesting article as it focuses on the ways in which wikis have excelled in enticing people into contributing and exciting them about making contributions. Businesses and organizations can learn a lot from this article as it also illustrates ways in which a wiki can be used to increase the rate, amount and quality of contribution. The precise nature of Wikipedia is one of the greatest advantages it has over other information sources. People looking for information find their topic and the information provided is in a formatted style that is maintained throughout the site. The limited security measures on Wikipedia allow people to contribute what they wish with minimal restrictions. The question is however can a wiki such as Wikipedia be used effectively to add value and increase collaboration within a business environment? Wikipedia does allow users to contribute information and remove the barriers and restrictions of both geographic and social status. This can allow bias or ill-informed information to be present in articles. Within a business structure there is little to no chance of purposely misleading information being presented to the articles. This does remove one of the major problems that Wikipedia faces as the integrity of information is assured. So with this in mind does a wiki remain a great resource for collaboration within a business environment?