Do you think that the supposed "democratisation of knowledge" on Web 2.0 is a good thing?

Question

I am thinking of the effects of having user-generated content presented as "fact", when it has not necessarily been generated by an expert.
Is it a good thing to think that knowledge is just a matter of opinion and that everybody should have the right to be considered an expert, no matter how flawed their reasoning?

Oops - a flawed post! I meant to mention wikipedia as an example - I look at wikipedia from time to time, but otherwise I would avoid unsubstantiated "facts" (i.e, if I cannot be satisfied of its validity) like the plague.
I am aware that the contributors can post their sources, but that doesn't detract from my question...

Answer 1

Here's the real crux: How do you tell a fact from a falsehood?

If your only means of doing so is by trusting only people with established credentials that 'prove' they know what they're talking about, then you are not only going to miss out on a LOT of good ideas developed by people with direct experience instead of credentials, but you will probably have just as much contradiction between so-called experts as you would with total amateurs.

If, on the other hand, you develop the capability to filter the truth from the overwhelming morass of opinion and lies, then democratizing contributions can only help. Since you will know how to tell good information from bad information, almost any amount of information will bring the possibility of adding without substantially subtracting.

Yes, that DOES mean more work for you. But perhaps it's work you should have been doing anyway... even with all the so-called experts.

Answer 2

Well, I think the utopian form of Web 2.0 is that people take the knowledge with "a grain of salt." They have access to more information and use their judgement and skepticism to find the best available. They take into account where the information comes from and go to more traditional sources to confirm facts.

Whether this is actually happening is another story of course.

I think in the long run, it is a good thing. Some subjects don't require a top down system of information. Some do. I don't think someone is going to start building bridges after reading an article about bridges on Wikipedia. An article about literary theory however is perfectly suited to many interpretations.