Participatory journalism and the credibility issue

"among them is the idea of citizen or participatory journalism, where visitors to a news site are allowed to contribute stories and other materials"-2 EOJ 1-3

To me, this kind of journalism should be looked at in the same way we look at wikipedia. Some people may actually write credible material, but there are thousands out there who will feel the urge to pollute the site with jokes and innacurate information in order to screw over readers actually trying to do research. I believe about.com falls under the category of participatory journalism. Anyone can join as "an expert", no college degree or professional credentials needed. This sites are best used as springboards: they can provide you with the basic information you should look into. Only then will you discovered the validity of what was provided. Often more helpful than the articles themselves are the links to credible sites at the end. Wikipedia has gone a step above about.com in that it can include in-text citations of information from credible websites and articles. That said, there are plenty of wiki entries that do not.

Never quote in an academic paper from these types of sites. 

Now let's talk about video editing. Maybe someone can solve this problem for me. I have Windows Movie Maker on my computer. So do my sister and our friend Brandi. How is it that they can edit videos in the program by dragging and dropping from their memory cards, yet my videos can't be edited because the player won't accept them. Does it have something to do with the fact that my camera records video as quicktime files? Is this "Avid" program available for download? The book says it will accept quicktime files. Is there any way windows movie maker will be able to accept quicktime files.