We study what can be learned when receiving reports from multiple non-expert information sources. We suppose that sources report all that they consider possible, given their expertise. This may result in false and inconsistent reports when sources lack expertise on a topic. A learning method is truth-tracking, roughly speaking, if it eventually converges to correct beliefs about the ``actual" world. This involves finding both the actual state of affairs in the domain described by the sources, and finding the extent of the expertise of the sources themselves. We investigate the extent to which truth-tracking is possible, and describe what information can be learned even if the actual world cannot be pinned down uniquely. We find that a broad spread of expertise among the sources allows the actual state of affairs to be found, even if no individual source is an expert on all topics. On the other hand, narrower expertise at the individual level allows the actual expertise to be found more easily. Finally, we turn to concrete families of learning methods adapted from the belief change literature, and characterise the conditions under which they are truth-tracking.