It’s worth remembering that DBpedia extracts structured information from Wikipedia and publishes it as Linked Data on the Web (as RDF). Most folk would agree that DBpedia is very much the backbone/ nucleus of the Web of Data. So in a sense wikipedia (or at least a version of it) is part of the semantic web.

Basically, you should get something back for a bail-out, rather than validating the strategy of risky operating.

There are surely more worthy uses of resources in these tough times than looking at a current market leader and jumping on its bandwagon.

“Inside, Wikipedia is more like a sweatshop than Santa’s workshop”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/wikipedia

For all Jimmy Wales’s self-promotion regarding his supposed ability to
build good communities, it’s apparent his skill is instead in knowing
how to sell a dysfunctional community effectively. One subtext of the
Wikipedia hype is that businesses can harvest an eager pool of free
labour, disposable volunteers who will donate effort for the sheer joy
of it. The fantasy is somewhat akin to Santa’s workshop, where little
elves work happily away for wages of a glass of milk and a cookie.
Whereas the reality is closer to an exploitative cult running on
sweatshop labour.

It might be more interesting … to package Roo’s guidance and publish it under a creative commons licence so that it can be used and extended by others

As it happens, posts on my blog are already licensed under a Creative Commons licence.

Benjamin Ells said:

What is on Roo’s blog is under Roo’s control. If Roo moves on to another employer … and there are pointers to the information on his blog, what then?

No matter what happens to me, I don’t see what that post would change or go anywhere. You’re right to be nervous though. That’s why it’s not only on my blog, it’s also on an internal wiki where anyone in the BBC can continue to build on it whatever happens. Of course, if there’s ever a more obvious place to put those sorts of notes externally (I expect the FM&T standards & guidelines site isn’t it, but I might be wrong) then I’m up for that too.

And as to whether the BBC should involved with as frankly eccentric and unaccountable a project as Wikipedia, I think the answer’s easy. Of course it should. Wikipedia – like it or not – is the number one source of learning and information content on the web (at least the English-speaking web and at least in terms of raw traffic). Like I said, it’s become the backbone of the semantic web (not in any technical way, of course, as several people have pointed out) and a failure to build systems that click together with Wikipedia would just be a kind of petulance.

The critical thing is for the BBC and others is to be engaged with Wikipedia, both at the content level and – to the extent that this is appropriate – in efforts to reform the way it’s run. I think the obvious fragility of Wikipedia’s governance is the main reason to get involved. It’s not about mounting a coup or even about publicly rubbishing the current system but it’s about being present as the thing evolves and as the strains in the Jimbo-centric model become more apparent. If, as seems inevitable, Wikipedia is ultimately reformed, moved to a new ownership model, opened up to control by stakeholders or whatever, the BBC should be present in all layers of the stack to make sure it doesn’t go pear-shaped and die, taking a gazillion web links with it and gutting the semantic web as it does so.

Whilst the discussion is interesting, I would advise closer attention to the issue of editorial control. This is just as relevant on the web as it is on traditional media. What is on Roo’s blog is under Roo’s control. If Roo moves on to another employer (and I hope he doesn’t – I appreciate what he is doing at the BBC) and there are pointers to the information on his blog, what then?

Rather than using public money to prop up Wikipedia, and a drive monoculture of knowledge on the Internet, how about adding to the diversity by linking back to valuable resources created and hosted by the BBC.

It is great to get involved in trying to correct inaccuracies in Wikipedia (and good luck with that), but using BBC time (and money) to populate it does not sound like a good idea, to me at least.

“Wikipedia isn’t about human potential, whatever Wales says”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/sep/25/wikipedia.internet

What I didn’t make explicit and which Michael picked up on in the comments is the work adding links between musicbrainz and wikipedia for the benefit of bbc.co.uk and the LOD cloud at large.

It’s still early and there is much more we could/should be doing in this space… thankfully there’s a lot more to come

I fear you have completely misunderstood the concept of the semantic web. Try here -

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/