User Generated vs. Expert Generated

I know that I find things like Wikipedia useful as an introduction to a topic, but that's about all. It serves to give me "good keywords" from which to search more reliable sources for accurate detail. If I were an instructor/supervisor for someone that gave me research based entirely on a site like Wikipedia - I would doubt the credibility of the research. 1) It's a lazy way out. 2) It shows a lack of understanding on authoritative sources. All it reliably serves to do is inform you "what you don't know to ask".

I'm not a fan of opinion blogs as a reference. You see all too often on sites like Digg that opinion blogs get a giant surge of traffic when it's "what the audience wants to hear" and it begins to be trumpeted as fact. Their writing typically doesn't even cite anything! The behavior would be akin to the New York Times putting it's OP/ED section on the front page and staff writer's work as an insert into the comics.

Sure - it's great that everybody has a say easily. But do they necessarily need to have a say? Perhaps the very mild learning curve of being able to create a webpage was the barrier to keeping riff raff from publishing. If you really have something worth saying, you'll do the work necessary to be heard and accepted. I believe moderation has its place and works that can stand on their own without wiki-edits are valuable resources.

This is not to say wikis and discussion forums are bad. They just have to be kept in their place. They are certainly excellent tools for hobbyists or people with like interests. But as a source of credible information? Not so much.

I can go anywhere to see spewing in all caps. I'm a gas Nazi and I found someone here who's more anal retentive about the mpg analysis than me! No regurgitation of the global warming religion (left or right) just a straight analysis of what's going on.

Don't need another Facebook.

The Crowd is Untruth.

I think Omninerd differs in that the bar is raised for those who wish to comment or reply. Most of us on here examine another's words with objectivity...Or at least such is the hope.

I doubt one could start a discussion about such contentious topics as Global Warming (for example), redistributing the tax burden or God without a multitude of opinions being voiced; without half-truths being called out as such; without people referencing solid sources (though there might be those inclined to link to FOX news).

The level of discourse is high enough that new-comers would preemptively self-police and stay away were they unable to bring them $0.75 words and ideas....or is it that Omninerd just has not blown up on the streets yet?