a. Which criteria did you use to evaluate Stomp.com? Why did you choose this criteria? What lessons have you learnt from this activity?

Authority. From this criteria, I have learned that STOMP has little authority and limited coverage. It provides coverage on happenings, however, most of the time the citizen journalists do not approach parties involved to find out what really is happening. Often, the "journalists" speculate based on a sighting, and commenters continue to speculate. The truth hardly comes to light. Thus, STOMP, more often than not, doesn't provide an authority on topics that it covers because its content involves a lot of speculation.

b. How do you feel about sharing your views via Wiki?

I feel that views shouldn't be shared on a wiki page per se, because a wiki page should be backed up by factual research. If something is written with a leaning agenda, than something else should be written to counter-argue the former. Both should be backed up by factual research.