The best known is Wikipedia (http://wikipedia.org). Since 2001, Wikipedia has been written collaboratively by 13,000 main contributors, constantly refining and submitting materials and adding cross-references and citations. This voluntary exercise has amassed 4 million articles in 100 languages. While sceptics expect it to be unruly and untrustworthy, Wikipedia is generally a reliable body of knowledge, built by a self-refereeing community of enthusiasts. Indeed, a highly controversial peer review investigation led by Nature, the science journal, concluded that “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries” (see www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html). In any event, corroborating the philosopher Karl Popper, a new form of evolutionary knowledge is emerging here, an online world underpinned by . . . survival of the smartest.

HOW will wikis be used in law? In principle, whenever there is an opportunity for lawyers to collaborate with one another or with their clients, then wikis can be deployed. Although the legal fraternity is not renowned for collaborating, the clear attractions of legal wikis should help to foster greater co-operative spirit: contributions can be made easily and quickly; their impact and utility is immediate; they evolve rather than requiring one single act of creation; they provoke stimulating debate; and they appeal to the ego, in that contributors seem irresistibly enjoined to leave their mark.

As a tool for gathering and sharing insight into clients and markets, wikis stand out as more intuitive and practical than most techniques of the past. As a method of capturing know-how — about areas of law, types of work and jurisdictions — wikis seem more natural and convenient. And as a way of building up a body of knowledge about live deals or disputes, wikis are ideally suited, providing an accessible shared space for all parties involved. One recent example is WikiCrimeLine, an effort to encourage 8,000 criminal lawyers to build a shared public body of knowledge about the criminal justice system (www.wikicrime.co.uk).

BUT AN even more ambitious initiative surely beckons: a Wikipedia of English law. This online resource could be established and maintained collectively by the legal profession; by practitioners, judges, academics and voluntary workers. If leaders in the English legal world are serious about promoting the jurisdiction as world class, here is a genuine opportunity to pioneer, to excel, to provide a wonderful social service, and to leave a substantial legacy. The initiative would evolve a corpus of English law like no other: a resource readily available to lawyers and lay people; a free web of inter-linked materials; packed with scholarly analysis and commentary, supplemented by useful guidance and procedure; rendered intensely practical by the addition of action points and standard documents; and underpinned by direct access to legislation and case law, made available by the Government, perhaps through BAILII (www.bailii.org). And we should not stop at text. We should add video and audio clips as well — perhaps of seminal lectures of the day or even of our senior judges delivering judgments (how marvellous would it be if we could watch and listen to, say, Lord Atkin read his judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson?). A Wikipedia of English law could be an evolving, interactive, multimedia legal resource of unprecedented scale and utility.

The author lectures and consults internationally. He is IT adviser to the Lord Chief Justice and Honorary Professor at Gresham College. He can be contacted through www.susskind.com

Times Recommends

• Are top lawyers worth their huge fees?
• Solicitor forced to retire claims 'ageism'
• Drug case failure may be last straw for SFO