At first glance, Wikipedia appears to be a post-structuralist construct. Clearly, though, the editors have some very traditional notions of authority and the notion of 'the original'.
Note to self: examine network theory, with regards to the shift in power from a relative handful of empowered individuals ('critics') to a vast, way more levelled, playing field ('bloggers'). The playing field isn't entirely level, however: power still resides with a handful of immensely influential nodes (Pitchfork, Mess And Noise etc). So is it a mistake to assume that critics have been replaced by bloggers? Doesn't the power still reside in the places it's always resided: there's been no fundamental shift, even though the medium has changed. Shouldn't blogs be equated more along the lines of lower-level conversational taste-making down a pub or venue or refectory (etc)?