Wisdom of Crowds, Wiki > EB

The article about phony stories on the Digg website is expected to happen in the online community. When I read reviews I try to look for spelling errors to show some kind of honest input, or articles that contain some complaints. When I purchase a product I look for the cons on different website reviews. I know that if it’s a good buy, with a small problem, I can make it work. I feel that if there are phony reviews posted about the product I’m buying, I can find better information especially on sites that stack reviews, like Google shopping. It’s super easy for companies to infiltrate a product review and post 5 stars to it. The bigger my review search, the better feedback I’ll receive about the product.
As far as what will be more accurate in 10 years, Wikipedia or Encyclopedia Britannica, I feel that Wiki will be the champ, only because of how easy and direct the information is linked through the site. Wiki pops up first on my searches; it usually has credible sources, and every time I’ve edited an article incorrectly on purpose to see the correction response time, it was fixed pretty fast. EB is strict, while Wiki is usually stacked with more links, examples, and history. After listening to the recording I agree that experts should be writing the encyclopedia, but people want information now, and a preview for what they’re searching for asap. I typed in Conspiracy theory in EB and links of historical conspiracy populated, but no regular definition. As long as there are credible sources on Wikipedia, I’d use wiki over EB.