Mr. Tapscott is an internationally sought authority, consultant and speaker on business strategy and organizational transformation. His clients include top executives of many of the world’s largest corporations and government leaders from many countries. Find out more about Don here.
Search
Sponsors
Partner
Free Download: Chapter One of the transparency hit The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency Will Revolutionize Business. Submit your email and receive it now.
Posted by Don Tapscott on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 at 10:48:55 AM
A special report by Nature Magazine shows that Wikipedia, oft-critizcized for its quality and breadth, isn’t that far off from industry stalwart Encyclopedia Britannica.
According to the report, Jimmy Wales’ creation is pretty darn close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of science entries; the average Wikipedia science entry contained four inaccuracies, Britannica about three.
While much is made of Wikipedia’s credibility given some very high profile quality and content issues (i.e. the Seigenthaler experience), the truth of the matter is that the concept works. This report shows the power of peer production, especially when you consider that Wikipedia is 7 times larger than EB and covers a much broader range of topics.
Posted by Don Tapscott on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 at 2:26:38 PM
When the Rolling Stones announced they were performing live in Toronto last Wednesday I tried in vain to change my travel plans so I could attend. Luckily, I found out that I could listen in to the live concert courtesy of Toronto radio station Q107. The station sent an email to listeners stating that "Regardless of where the Stones perform, keep it tuned to the Mighty Q tomorrow night at 8 p.m. where you'll hear the Stones LIVE on Q107!"
Live!
I tuned in and listened to an absolutely awesome concert. A fabulous selection of old hits interspersed with some great new original songs and cover versions of some old soul songs. I was a very happy customer of the Mighty Q.
That is until early Friday morning when a friend of mine mentioned that what I, and thousands of other Stones fans, had heard on Wednesday night wasn’t a live performance but rather a three year old bootlegged tape of a previous concert. I felt royally duped. The station made no attempts to dissuade... read more
Posted by Don Tapscott on Friday, July 29, 2005 at 10:03:01 AM
Another great example this week of company's learning that you can't hide from your stakeholders. Altera tried to do so by shutting out an independent analyst covering the company. The analyst struck back by going public about the company's decision and more importantly brought a great deal of attention and scrutiny to the company's share buyback policy. Had they been open about the issue it never would have made front page news. But in the age of blogs and online social networks the analyst's story spread thoughout the blogosphere, attracting thousands of readers and a great deal of negative publicity and scrutiny.
In general, I'd much rather hear about organizational issues from the company itself, like Gap did when addressing continuing labor issues in its supply chain, then getting it second hand on the Internet. In the Age of Transparency corporations are naked - and if you're going to be naked, you'd better be buff.
Posted by Don Tapscott on Thursday, June 02, 2005 at 1:55:01 PM
It's interesting/depressing to hear PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP defence of its behaviour in missing many of the accounting improprieties at AIG and not being concerned at the audit committee saying that its oversight did ''not provide an independent basis to determine that management has maintained appropriate accounting and financial reporting principles.'' Further, the committee said it couldn't assure that the audit had been carried out according to normal standards or even that PWC was in fact ''independent.''
As the Washington Post story notes, the AIG's audit committee's disclaimer is part of a lawsuit filed by Ohio's attorney general accusing AIG of securities fraud and alleging that PricewaterhouseCoopers disregarded key warning signs and, as a result, repeatedly issued ''false and misleading'' audit reports of the insurer's books.
''We cannot comment on client matters; however, that sort of proxy language was not uncommon pre-Sarbanes-Oxley [Act] and in fact was... read more
Posted by Don Tapscott on Tuesday, May 24, 2005 at 2:24:28 PM
In a David and Goliath battle, the Internet may not level the playfield, but it certainly gives a David more sure footing. In complex fights with large companies, those who feel they have been cheated can post reams of material to the Net to buttress their arguments. Prior to the Net, these people really had no vehicle to turn a persistent spotlight on the company that they felt was doing them wrong. And once the material is posted, it just sits there at virtually no cost, patiently waiting for other potential franchisees/investors/clients/victims to stumble across the site and read the truth. In this case, Scheibeler says more than 100,000 visitors have downloaded his book in .pdf form about the alleged corruption within Amway. Certainly someone intending to join the Amway organization would pause to reconsider given the material Scheibeler has posted, complete with supportive comments from a retired assistant attorney general from Wisconsin.
