wisdom of crowds

The credibility and validity of the wisdom of crowds is very volatile. While some crowds may consist of the brightest intellects across various fields, it is important to understand that not all crowds are wise. With that being said, I think the true potential utilization of the wisdom of crowds comes from diversity and independence of opinion, specialization, and appropriate aggregation of content. The ability of Wikipedia to have various authors contribute allows an increase in insights to occur. Similarly, instead of having just one author's knowledge on a matter, a multitude of people from various backgrounds can contribute the knowledge they have amassed. The key features in establishing the credibility of Wikipedia as a preliminary source are undoubtedly the references and further reading components. Encyclopedia Britannica is often seen as a scholarly, credible source in comparison to Wikipedia. However, I really question whether or not this opinion is valid, or will remain valid. With Encyclopedia Britannica, it is often one author contributing an article, or a small group of authors with similar mindsets and experiences. These authors contribute to other articles across different fields as well, and are thus not necessarily as passionate in a specialized field as Wikipedia contributors. Encyclopedia Britannica does not have the framework or structure to beat this potential of the wisdom of crowds, which is why I think Wikipedia will most likely be the more successful and most popular source in coming years.