This post largely ties into the one from 3-19 on the problems inherent in presentation of a historical narrative and the availability of information.  Crowd sourcing, such as Wikipedia, is seen by many as an invalid source of information, and also by many as a valuable location for discourse.  Its when anyone is allowed to contribute to a particular topic, be it the growth of beets in suburban Wisconsin or the accuracies of modern viking portrayals.

I feel that this topic links into the early arguments for freedom of information, from Berners-Lee and Shannon most notably, even the earliest forms of the DARPANET.  Those figureheads argued that the more participants, or paths, that the flow of information has, the higher chance of accuracy or survival that information has, be it constituents in a discussion on the vikings or the waystations along which nuclear research can flow in  the 1950s and 1960s.

Crowd sourcing to me seems like it is a beneficial construct in the modern internet.  Anyone who feels that they have valuable information on a topic is allowed to contribute to a Wiki page on it, and the virtual numbers of other knowledge sources are also allowed to refute or refine that information.  It also has a system of moderation in place to regulate the stream for relevance or tension.  To me, Wikipedia is a valuable asset on today’s internet, but it is also up to the researcher to do more in depth searching in other places.