Aware of hidden agendas, people no longer believe in the possibility of absolute truth or complete transparency from institutions, public figures, and individuals. Yet they are still drawn to honesty, integrity, and – at times – even vulnerability, which they expect from peers and brands alike.

Amid widespread condemnation of fake news on social platforms and international media outlets, brands are taking an active role in combatting dishonesty. Through its program Wiki Edu, Wikipedia is teaming up with students and academics to ensure the integrity of its articles.

Trump’s Presidential win left half the world aghast, and the other half saying ‘I told you so’, raising all kinds of questions about the flow of information online. And it's led to a call for social platforms and media outlets to take some responsibility. But is it too little, too late?

The problem with people using their social feeds as a news source is that they end up exclusively reading and sharing media that reflects views they already have. But amid this landscape of echo chambers, Wikipedia has unexpectedly held its ground as a beacon of neutrality.

As professional critics lament their ebbing influence on consumers who increasingly rely on the opinions of online peers, the question is being raised of whether top-down reviewers matter anymore. Are crowdsourced reviews – a sort of ‘online word of mouth’ – the only currency that counts?