Information validity is increasingly determined by the views of many individuals, not the select domain of a few. Wikipedia validates information (or settles disputes) based on a transparent process (try challenging an "expert" to reveal how they allow for feedback to their lectures and writing). The activities of many (not in creating the content, but in evaluating it - i.e. "rate this" approach from eBay, Digg, and other sites) provides a different type of validation of information. I emphasize different - expert-bases systems have value, but their value diminishes simply because no single person can keep up with today's information. A network, however, can.
How Choice, Co-Creation, and Culture Are Changing What It Means to Be Net Savvy: "The vast amount of readily available information is just one reason for transforming the way we conduct research and acquire knowledge. The nature of information itself has changed. In text and other formats, information is not just created by experts—it is created and co-created by amateurs. We can select what information to receive (via RSS, for example), and it comes to us—we don't have to seek it out. More than ever before, we can choose what, when, and where to use information. With all these choices, do we really know what we are doing, whether the information is valid, or how best to use it?"