I'm not above using Wikipedia as a source, but I've never written, or rewritten, an entry, and always try to remember that though it is an awesome compilation of information, it can be manipulated, at least in the short term, and should never be trusted as a sole resource.

It is from that perspective that I pass along word, via ecogeek, of green.wikia.com, introduced yesterday by Jimmy Wales, the guy behind Wikipedia and many other little wikis.

This one is written from a green perspective, and offers information to those who want to adopt green practices. Go to green wikia's about page to see more, including comparisons of how the same topic can have pretty different entries.

So would you spend $55 million without expectation of return? You know, if you made billions in profit and could afford it?

When the new site goes live, it will have a blog made up of all the green content from here. Where here, green has been one category among many, it will be divided it into green subcategories. One of them is going to be infoporn, a term that I think arose at Fast Company, or Wired; it is a perfect description of one of my itches. And, it's about the most I can say about the rest of this post...

This all comes from an LA Times story yesterday:

In Colorado, it's illegal to harvest rainwater, because someone downstream owns the rights to that which falls from the sky.

In California, almost 20 percent of electricity goes to the treatment and delivery of water. Nationally, public water systems use 50 Billion killowatt-hours of electricity to operate.

I heard two very helpful presentations at BE'08 whose common element was the dynamic Solitaire Townsend, a Brit who cofounded Futerra, a green PR agency in London, and has developed enough of a reputation that NESEA invited her to America so she could speak at its show.

Portfolio magazine offers up a list of 11 admirably green companies, and paired it with the "Toxic 10" list of companies that should be doing better. I found I was more interested in the bad guys, which I think says less about negativity (or, I hope so) than it says about new information: Companies doing more green are often cited as such, but I don't recall having seen many most-troubling-polluter lists.

I'll just pass on the names of each. You can follow the links if you want to know more.

I wouldn't have thought to match these two spots for comparison, or the others contained therein, but that's what makes this "Globalist Quiz" question in Sunday's Globe interesting... 

Seth Godin is always interesting, but doesn't often tread into green-tinted areas, so this post adds even greater value to what he usually brings. He starts off wondering why a Poland Spring bottle weighs half of what a Gatorade bottle does, and winds up, via input from a friend/reader, explaining some of the factors that govern which bottle type a manufacturer uses into it while offering perspective on how packaging affects sales.