1) Web 2.0 focuses on Peer Production. This allows their users to work
collaboratively to create content and provide services online. As a result, the
content created is shared and commented on by the rest of the community. This
differs from prior Internet sites because the older versions of the web paid many
experts to provide the content on the web which others are able to read and learn.
This causes the site to lose a lot of money. Web 2.0 focuses on paying a few
experts and allowing the content to be changed easily by peers, which provides
the world with many minute details and examples. Groups make better decisions
than expert individuals due to the diversity of opinions, and Web 2.0 capitalizes
on this fact.
2) I feel like I can trust content within a Wiki because granted, anyone can make
alterations but, if someone makes a false change to the information on a Wiki,
usually within 10 minutes, the experts who are getting paid to work on the site
will fix it. All changes are attributed so that others can see who made a given edit.
Additionally, a complete revision history is maintained so changes can be
compared against prior versions and rolled back as needed. However, I believe
that if both the encyclopedia and a Wiki contain information about the same topic,
the encyclopedia will most likely be more accurate. Consequently, Wikis will
have information on more and recent topics whereas the encyclopedia will not.
Newspaper articles are very accurate but I feel like there is a lot of opinions in
those articles so I would much rather rely on Wiki