"I'm an encyclopedia person who happened to use a wiki."

-Jimbo Wales, the face of Wikipedia. So I had no idea what a wiki meant, but I knew what wikipedia was. I can't recall how many times I used it for my Middle East class to help get some background on Iraq, and numerous Middle East conflicts. My google search of "wiki" brought me to Wikipedia where it was further explained. So then if anyone can edit and post information, how much of it is true? Swartz cleared that up for me quickly, after his Alan Alda example, he goes on to say how, "When you put it all together, the story become clear: an outsider makes one edit to add a chunk of information, then insiders make several edits tweaking and reformatting it." So the insiders are the ones who care, making sure of correct information. The information is also endless, which is a huge advantage overhaving a collection of Encyclopedias on your bookshelf. The majority of stuff i'm stumped on usually ends up in a wikipedia search, because I know there will be a topic "posted". So how does Web 2.0 fit in? Well again, just by searching wikipedia you can find all the contents of Web 2.0 . Yep just like last weeks Social Networking, a collaberative way to share information via users and outsiders. But Michael Gorman makes a good point when he says, "Human beings learn, essentially, in only two ways. They learn from experience—the oldest and earliest type of learning—and they learn from people who know more than they do. The second kind of learning comes from either personal contact with living people—teachers, gurus, etc.—or through interaction with the human record, that vast assemblage of texts, images, and symbolic representations that have come to us from the past and is being added to in the present. It is this latter way of learning that is under threat in the realm of digital resources." Verifiable credentials are put into question, and are we relying too much on the these "wikis" and "web 2.0" to learn?