Here's an outline of "The New Politics of Knowledge":

I.                   Wikipedia as the locus of an interesting partisan debate

a.     What Wikipedia's defenders are like

b.     What Wikipedia's detractors are like

c.      The debate is extremely vigorous and high-level

d.     Why is it a source of such fascination?

II.                 What the debate is about

a.     Fundamentally, it's about control of what passes for knowledge

b.     More specifically, three questions

c.      "Presumed knowledge" (or "what passes for knowledge") explained

d.     What in general ought to pass for knowledge?  This reduces to a procedural question: how should we decide what passes for knowledge?

e.     The politics of knowledge is about this procedural question writ large: how should we, as a society, decide what should pass for knowledge?

f.       And this comes down to a question of who: who is to be trusted as the formulators of presumed knowledge?

g.     Wikipedia and other projects raise the question what role the public should have as formulators of presumed knowledge

III.              Why the debate over the politics of knowledge is heating up now

a.     The evolution of the Internet revolution

                                                              i.      The Internet put the power of publishing into people's hands

                                                             ii.      Collaborative publishing made it possible to create rapidly

                                                           iii.      Individual communities necessarily resulted

                                                          iv.      But we can now speak of a single global collaborative community: the Creative Public

b.     The next step in the evolution: the political decisions of the Creative Public

                                                              i.      The Creative Public is becoming self-aware

                                                             ii.      The Creative Public can "vote with their feet" and thereby together decide what collaborative projects should exist

                                                           iii.      The decision to participate in a project is a declaration of support for the kind of online governance the project has

c.      The main arena of the new politics of knowledge is project governance

                                                              i.      Radical egalitarianism is built into the governance models of many collaborative projects

                                                             ii.      This not only sets up online resources that compete with the old expert-driven resources, it helps ensure that experts will be excluded from the online resources.

IV.              Toward online Republics

a.     As a member of the Creative Public, you can "vote with your feet" for a variety of systems

b.     There are well-understood problems inherent in anarchy, aristocracy, dictatorship, and pure democracy.  Constitutional representative democracy is curiously untried.

c.      To decide on one of these systems is to decide who determines what should pass for knowledge or reliable information

d.     It's bizarre that more people aren't supporting online Republics

e.     The requirements of online Republics, explained

f.       Only a constitutional Republic (1) rewards the participation of the Creative Public with authority in the project, (2) prevents that authority from being removed by others, and (3) creates a framework in which experts may operate fairly, without being able to abuse their authority

V.                 The role of experts in online Republics

a.     The burden is surely on those who believe that the arguments for offline republics do not apply to online governance

b.     But I still need to defend my commitment to expertise

c.      Leadership--not to say top-down orders, of course--must rest in the hands of experts, however, because they are, by definition, the people who have made it their lives' work to know stuff about their areas of expertise

d.     In collaborative projects, it is not individuals but rather the collective that has influence; but a collective made up of the Creative Public is not the best source of intellectual authority

e.     But agreeing with that does not require giving up all influence: in a Republic, the Creative Public still holds the cards.