Today, Wired has a feature on Wikipedia, discussing the 100,000 English article milemark and the future of Wikipedia.

The article points out that Wikipedia has a "Neutral Point of View policy, which encourages contributors to write articles without bias, represent all views fairly and to attribute controversial opinions, rather than stating them as fact."

I was wondering. Assuming that knowledgeable people are contributing, and given that this is a live encylopedia--always open to revision--could it be that this model will be successful? After all, one popular comment of the blogosphere suggests that it puts a more honest face on journalism as bloggers critique everything the media publishes.

Similarly, being constantly open to revision should allow the articles on Wikipeida to not only grow, but also become more refined in terms of accuracy, assuming that is, they are following their Neutral Point of View policy. Can such a large, collaborative project eventually result in the superior product over commercial encyclopedias?

Kairosnews member johnsonla seems to be thinking upon similar lines in this comment:"Beside lack of access to pay services and mistrust of official sources, one could also make the open source argument, right? More people involved in the wikipedia community and project, the more likely the content is to be good - to have been reviewed by many eyes, etc. "

Worth considering. One Wikipedia author, Ed Poor, predicts, "I think that over the next few years, it's going to develop into a world-class encyclopedia that will rival the Britannica."

To be honest, I hope so. Would be great to demonstrate that an open publishing model such as this can be successful, as well as providing such an amazing resource for public access. Maybe one day the Wikipedia will have it's own historical narrative to tell, although not, perhaps, as intriguing as The Professor and the Madman.