True, but unless you place some really strict filters on the crowd you're sourcing from, odds are the vast majority of it will be bad, and make you dumber.
'Tis the reason why I stopped using any sort of aggregator (Slashdot, reddit, Digg, etc.) for any news. The average intelligence and professionalism demonstrated on such sites is so low that I'd rather be staring at a wall than reading those sites.
I don't really read it for "news" though - it's more of a "hey someone wrote/created something cool" source for me, which is a-ok as a crowdsourced thing.
Intelligence is expressed in the quality of ideas, not the quality of words. An editorial could be written using 5th grade vernacular but also express ideas associated with post-grad work. This is just another sensationalistic article.
Crowd-sourcing is often richer in background that was filtered-out by newspapers. I'm feeling smarter about history and real motives than I did back when mass media were all I had.
