Because of the glorious victory of online-lexica like wikipedia,
the running publishing of printed encyclopedias have been cancelled.
The very expensive authorship of best scientists, of the responsible compilation and verification is not economical competitive with "free" online-lexica.
But wikipedia is no medium for beeing used as source for citation in serious articles.
Users trust into the "swarm intelligence", that will eliminate mistakes.
But what, if wikipedia is active manipulated by hidden mighty interests?
I want to document here a german text about a filmdoku:
"The Dark Side of Wikipedia", made by Markus Fiedler, Diplom-Biologist, Music-Teacher and Dozent for "Integrated Media":http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=28035#more-28035
He says, that wiki-articles about nature-science in wikipedia are often excellent -
but articles about recent history, politics and specific peoples seems to follow a hidden agenda and resist any effort to correct mistakes.
This leads to the defamation of people, f.e. the swiss historian Daniele Ganser, who published about hidden NATO-armys or about backgrounds on 9/11.
There exist a self-referential feedback-loop in a citation circle with mainstream-media, trying to bash people, who are engaged for peace, defamating them as political "right" or mad...
Why is this an important topic for "The Knowledge"?
We should rethink whether our modern system of collecting and providing knowledge is extremely fragile and may lead to a breakdown of knowledge transfer.
Knowledge is much more than to know how to make things.
Knowledge is also about how to understand history, philosophy, politics and the organisation of society.
It is important for to know, WHY to make things - or WHY NOT!
One step on the way to save serious ways of knowledge transfer may be the support of the edition of a new encyclopedia,
written by famous experts, published by responsible editors and printed on real paper...