The end of the slide show regarding Wikipedia poses two questions. One, "Is Wikipedia the Promoter of a genuine Public Sphere" and two, "How would you compare it to the contribution of Blogs." By answering both of these questions I think a better understanding of the impact Wikipedia has can be gained.
1) The question of if Wikipedia promotes a genuine public sphere is a tough question. The answer depends on what one considers a "genuine public sphere." In terms of interpersonal connection I would not say that it does promote that as much as say facebook or myspace. Because at its core Wikipedia is not a social networking tool, but rather an encyclopedia built through a social network, the amount of interaction is automatically limited, or at least limited to being strictly academic interaction. There is no "frivolous chatter" on Wikipedia, rather constant attention to the particular article being edited. I however, do not believe this to be the definition of a Public Sphere. I believe Wikipedia creates something unique that is a "public sphere" in its own right. Wikipedia is a collection of knowledge that is endlessly updated and revised. It is almost as if it is the biggest think tank in the world. While the information on Wikipedia has been labled as non-academic and not trustworthy, the study comparing mistakes shows it is just as reliable as a print encylopedia with one added bonus: it can be corrected instantly. At the risk of sounding cynical, often a growing collaboration of people leads inevitably to unintelligent groupthink, but in Wikipedias case the constant interaction and debate over corrections ultimately leaves us with a better product. So, while Wikipedias finished product does not imply any sort of public sphere, I would argue that it must be one based on the fact that it would not be as good (and therefore not as popular) without the input gained from its various contributors, who would have never had a forum like this without Wikipedia.
In regard to Wikipedias comparison to blogs, I feel that it is like comparing apples and oranges. At their core, while both are web tools they are striving to complete opposide agendas. The goal of blogs is to present an individuals opinion, generally about a specific topic. Wikipedia presents a neutral opinion about a vast amount of subjects. Both contributions are important, although I personally feel that Wikipedia has more of an impact on a larger group of people then a single persons blog. Utilizing both of these tools would give a reader a strong understanding of a topic as raw information could be gained by using Wikipedia and an understanding of the debates about an issue can be gained through the blogosphere (much moreso then on Wikipedia).
Overall Wikipedias contribution has been very positive and I feel that we are only beginning to see the impact it will have.
