I was originally enthusiastic about the 'wisdom of the crowds' and its potential. The Internet was a great experiment with unknown possibilities. I edited Wikipedia and talked about its potential.
I was skeptical at the same time - it was an experiment, not a revelation. I used to tell people, 'I don't know how Wikipedia could work, but it seems to'. I'd apply 'The Cathedral and the Bizarre' concept to it, and 'with enough eyes, all bugs are shallow' (even though those ideas were intended for open source software).
The 'wisdom of the crowds' depends on good faith from the members of the crowd. Otherwise you get the manipulation of the crowds and propaganda of the faux crowds. One serious concern I had was that, if economics predicts human behavior to some extent, Wikipedia could be a victim of its own success: The more readers and influence it had, the more likely people would try to use that power. I first saw it happening in 2006, in the page on the Duke University lacrosse team's sexual assault case. Many editors clearly engaged in rewriting history in order to advocate for the lacrosse players; many had names clearly asserting affinity for Duke U., such as 'bluedevil'. That seizure of power was highly disturbing; has Wikipedia developed better means to prevent it now?
Of course, the focus on using the 'wisdom of the crowds' to manipulate has shifted to other platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter. I stopped using Wikipedia years ago, other than to lookup basic facts that have little significance to me. I use Britannica (or other expert sources), which IMHO is very good and often very well written. While there is some benefit to 'wisdom of the crowds', I never know if that's what I'm getting at Wikipedia. As for the expert approach,
In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person.