All of us are smarter than each of us?

I'm intrigued by Tapscott's discussion of Wikipedia when talking about peering. In one year, Wikipedia had over 18 thousand articles - all contributed by volunteers who just wanted to share their knowledge with the world. Today the article count is estimated at over four million.

It's an interesting concept that knowledge would be trusted in the hands of anyone. For so long, we've always left knowledge up to the experts and scholars. You didn't know anything unless you had a bunch of letters behind your name like Old McDonald, Eieio.

At Principal we have put all of our knowledge online in the shape of articles and procedures for anyone to access. However, we only have a very small group that can edit the pages. I asked one of our technical writers about opening up eSource to allow others to edit the content. She quickly and adamently said no. She said we'd lose control of the content and no one could trust it. That's the exact same argument used against Wikipedia, but it's one of the most trusted sites on the Internet for information.

In the short time I've worked for Principal I've heard from so many people of work arounds or extra knowledge that isn't documented in eSource. One person is the go-to person for an entire department. So what happens when she leaves? All that knowledge leaves with her. Wouldn't it be nice if she or others that have learned from her the opportunity to document all of this?!