Public Impact of sources provided

Well, I came back to interest into the Maddie case with the crimewatch reconstruction and its follow up in Germany „Aktenzeichen XY“ by journalist Rudi Cerne. What upset me was really the thing how uninformed Rudi Cerne was and how submissive he behaved to the McCann’s and their version of the case. The public must have had the notion of the Royal Family being present there in Cerne’s TV Show. Although nothing really changed in evidence since Sept. 2007 the “reconstruction” was full of flaws in contrary to the official PJ files and not any of the since then still lurking doubts found its way into the show.
 
For sure at least about 95% of the German public believe in the McCann’s abduction-version and them being “proved” to be innocent in any way (how much in the UK?) . Even the professional German “crimewatch”-journalist Cerne for sure didn’t read any line of the original PJ Files.
 
From this the question arises: How can this be? The by far most reliable and serious facts, the official PJ files released in 2008 to the public (mccannpjfiles.co.uk), today are still not recognized, even by the most prominent specialised journalists! To say nothing of the additional, also forensically meaningful and reliable, collection of mediafiles and interviews around the case since 2007 to present date.
 
Now as I started investigative work with the case again since some weeks, I can say to this:
 
there are more than 11000 pages for just the original PJ files mccannPJfiles.co.uk
 
Searchtools:  the full text Google-Search-Bar
Ordering:  just some indexes (e.g. witnesses by first(!) name)
 
 
the collection mccannfiles.com will add at least another 10000 pages of serious information
 
Searchtools:  the full text Google-Search-Bar
Ordering:  only very long left side bar with a lot of special pages with very special sorting
 
 
a lot of blogs and forums may add up additional, at least interesting, information on the case, 
which will account for another 10 thousand pages and more.
 
Searchtools:  mostly Search-Bar of the special forum-software
Ordering: by discussion topics with very special sorting
 
 
Now, although there was really great work done since 2008,  the fact is: Any member of the public, also journalists or even professional investigators, has to go through at least the more than 11000 not very well sorted PJ-Files pages. The also important collection of Nigel Moore will add another adventure of searching in a morbid structure to find out what one needs. Of the say 50000 pages in WWW one has to read at least some 500 or so.
 
The effect is: No one who hasn’t enough time (and time is money) to invest, which means at least two weeks on intense reading and working in the case, has any chance to get onto a level of knowledge which is needed to know what one is talking about. Thus it is no marvel to me, why most people believe in the with no hard facts connected abduction theory. As the abduction hypothesis is the only one which is into the practical reach of the today most universal “cut and paste”-journalists.
 
I think this is a circumstance that must be changed! Which means the existing enormous amount of serious information must be made effectively fast searchable for the public. This can never be done by simple Google-Toolbars or links to interesting pages and so on. This means especially establishing highly structured platforms as Wikis, Graphs, or/and MindMaps as a toolbox for searching and finding(!) fast the things one needs.  
 
Restructuring the existing information for one developer would be much to much work and cost at least two years hard work. This but can (and as I think must) be done on the basis of clustered brainpower through internet. This means setting up collaboration platforms, e.g. as a Wikimedia project, say “WikiMaddie”. Such collaboration platforms then can be filled by the interested and informed public and managed and moderated through a few admins in the world-wide web. I could help in the whole software and service matter too.
 
 
What do you think?

Im sure google put out something (might be wrong on google) which cross references details and links them to relevant areas. Like an online brain. Ive seen it before but cant remember, but it seems effective, but needs a lot of input. But the results are supposed to be good for linkage

ChillyHeat wrote:Im sure google put out something (might be wrong on google) which cross references details and links them to relevant areas. Like an online brain. Ive seen it before but cant remember, but it seems effective, but needs a lot of input. But the results are supposed to be good for linkage

Yes thanks, I know Google is not bad, but is not one needs to search fast and reliable such an amount of unstructured data as it is the case for the Maddei case information in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] If Google would be enough for that, there would be no reason for a Wikipedia.

What one needs is a fully structered lexical database as Wikipedia is. A have set up a Wiki for collaborative Workspace as an Wiki, please check   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I have just started with first edits as samples. Everybody may collaborate.