A dominant theme in discussion 2 was about the reliability of wikis.  The pros and cons of the reliability of wikis over other sources was discussed by many members of the class.   Those for the reliability of wikis over other sources argued that history books are as one sided as wikis and articles peer-reviewed tend to have the problem of being out of date by the time they are published.  The article about the Reliability of Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia was a source used to defend wikis.  Those questioning the reliably of wikis proposed the problem of inaccurate and biased information from people contributing to wikis.  Also that students might not understand that wikis might not have reliable resources.  Another topic discussed on the reliability wikis was the need for educators to teach the double checking of information from wikis and other sources.

My thought on the reliability of wikis is that when one questions the reliability of wikis you question the common knowledge around a topic.  Wiki articles are conversed and debated until usually a general consensus is agreed upon.  Wikis are a democratization of information in that everyone is entitled to state their own opinion with no particular controller or expert.  Unlike any time in history governments, corporations and educational institutions are not needed as the sole source of reliable information in the digital age.  Wikis also have options for the writers of the article to protect it from vandalize.  Wikis are as reliable as any other physical or online resource.