Comments

Comments are an interesting phenomenon worth exploring.
I love to comment.
I try to comment every day.
I search for Blogs that deal with a subject I posted about hoping to start a dialog. One thing is for sure – comments force me read others' Blogs attentively and as a result I get to know unfamiliar angels of my subject matters. The bottom line is that comments enrich me.
Sometimes I need to retrieve a comment and I don't find it. I think this is a problem that I share with other people who use to comment – how to manage all these comments?
I use to Blinklist the Blog addresses but then I have to open the link and roll down or search the whole page – this process is quite clumsy.

Here is a possible solution – to collect comments dealing with one subject on one posting. Here's what I commented upon Wikipedia.

http://www.owczarek.com.pl/blog/2005/12/22/wikipedia-has-its-place/
This authority problem will worsen in the near future when micro-contents will be extracted from Wikipedia so that the author’s intention and even the author’s name will be lost in the process.
Authority is a must in the academic world but after you know the facts in the quickest way (Wikipedia) it is not so hard to get the honored academic proof to your unprofessional claims.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/archives/012839.html
Some people don't like Blogs and Wikipedia but others do: Wikipedia is the 37th most visited site on the Web and Blogs are growing each year by millions. It seems that quick success draws fire.
IMO it is not the logic of probabilistic statistics that creates this kind of criticism- it is the logic of simple good envy.

http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2005/12/24/anti-authoritarian-age/
It looks like you appreciate encyclopedias a little too much. IMO they are old macro content monsters that have to be shattered to atoms of knowledge and rearranged according to users needs.
See more on http://qtsaver.blogspot.com/2005/12/cat-b.html

http://blog.sugarenia.com/archives/links/nowpubliccom-the-wikipedia-of-news
You say:
“The idea behind Wikipedia is, somehow, the old and neglected “give the power to the masses” idea”. Here is my comment to this:
Wikipedia is considered to be a classic Web 2.0 tool because it is a peer production, because it has an open code and because it is open for every user to edit. It shatters the unique honored status of the encyclopedian and gives each one of us the opportunity to say: hey! I wrote an entry!
But there is one crucial aspect in which Wikipedia is old fashioned Web 1.0 and that’s the macro-content structure of the articles. Each article has a beginning and an end, premises and conclusions, an old-encyclopedia style flow. Mini-QTpedia (http://qtsaver.blogspot.com/2005/12/mini-qtpedia.html)
is going to change all that. It will take relevant excerpts from few articles and put them on the same page. In case a keyword is shared by many articles it will bring all the contexts in which it appears. The user will have no clue how the design of these excerpts looked on Wikipedia, were there pictures? Were there headings? Were there suggestions for further research? even the name of the Wikipedian will disappear and in order to find out all these elements the user will have to use the link that heralds each QTpedia excerpt.