There were two stories in yesterday’s news that intrigued me that they were coincidently released on the same day. The first was a discussion of Wikipedia and the false identity of one of the main editors. The guy, Ryan Jordan, used the username Essjay to create an identity stating that he had a Ph.D and was a professor of religion. Yesterday there was debate about whether this guy should be yanked from the site. One side of the argument being that he was a good editor and was trying to protect his identity. The other side of the argument being that he was a fraud. According to a story today from the BBC, it appears that Mr. Jordan has “retired from the site and his authority to edit has been cancelled.”

The controversary is interesting to me because I can understand both sides of the argument. Wikipedia is just that… a wiki. There are not any rules or regulations in place saying that you have to use your real identity. Yet, this is an encyclopedia and is well known in the Internet realm as a “reliable” source of information.

What is the most interesting is the coincidental timing of the patent office’s move to the Wikipedia concept. Highlighted in yesterday’s market report by American Public Media, the patent office will now be using a wikipedia structure to help the examiners get through the extreme amount of patent applications. Basically a wikipedia style peer review group will look at the patent applications before the examiners, and this peer review (from my understanding) actually filters what makes it to the examiners.

I have mixed feelings on this new approach.
1) Related back to the Wikipedia news release, how will they prevent fraud? In the wikipedia incident I felt the word fraud was a little harsh. But when we are talking about patents, fraud is definitely an issue. They say they will check the backgrounds, but how are they preventing people from slipping through the cracks?

2) This is an interesting idea on how to address the patent backlog problem. Using the wiki setup, intellectuals outside of the patent office can have an industry voice and perhaps shed an extra source of light. Yet, I believe there should be a concern that certain patent-deserving ideas won’t actually make it to the examiners.

3) I have more thoughts on this, but am still working them out in my head.