Recent decades have seen growing power of crowdsourcing. Wikipedia, which has been around for ten years now, is based in part on this notion: the combined research efforts of many people of varying backgrounds and opinions can provide better information than a single expert can find. That has proved problematical in practice. Libraries have become part of the solution to at least one problem, as Wikipedia has recently sponsored dozens of editing marathons (editathons) in libraries nationwide (and also more in Great Britain). Originally, crowdsourcing meant that Wikipedia and other similar organizations invited a broad spectrum of the general public to write and edit articles. It didn’t matter if they were recognized subject experts or not. I recall (but can’t find) a study several years ago that compared Wikipedia to Encyclopaedia Britannica. In scientific articles, it suggested that both have factual errors, and that on the whole the information contained in them is equally reliable.