http://tomglocer.com/blogs/sample_weblog/archive/2008/01/31/1376.aspxI gave the follwing speech this week at the Software Information Industry Association.  I chose to be intentionally provocative setting out an argument that traditional consumer media companies (newspapers, broadcast TV, etc) should not be publiclyen-GBCommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60217.2664)http://tomglocer.com/blogs/sample_weblog/archive/2008/01/31/1376.aspx#1495Fri, 29 Feb 2008 04:37:32 GMT5ec0f2cd-0076-4da8-8835-b35ad37b70da:1495FalguniTo a great extent I agree with your argument on why a lawyer would not risk his reputation on free wiki provided information in a court case.  This is true in many information verticals, where paid for content is much more informative and reliable, than the free stuff.  However, increasingly, we continue to see that a lot of free information on the web is actually quite good and very influential.  Take the example of Technorati, Blogpulse or even Youtube which allow a user to search for blogs or vlogs that cover certain topics. These tools are free and PR professionals would be foolish not to use them, especially if there is a strong consumer voice in the market regarding the company's brand or product.  Most blog content is free and we've all heard the horror stories of companies who did not research blog comments and found themselves in a PR nightmare, which then led to lower market valuations.  Take, for example, Kryptonitebike lock's experience, where the news media were the last ones to report the problem with the locks while the blogosphere had already covered it ad nauseum.  In a world where the consumer's voice - which I would argue is "must have information" - can be freely published, catalogued and searched on free applications faster than waiting for the news to come out, will journalistic content become less valuable?