Wikipedia seems fueled by what Bikert calls transitive thought, "a machine-drive harvesting of facts toward some specified end". What is that end? (What)Does it cost us as a culture? (How)Do our evolving technologies enable the intransitive in ways that were not previously possible?
That you write something that sticks; it's valid and permanent and has consequence. Wikipedia is "socially constructed," but is inherently limited because Wikipedia is ultimately mediated. We need to problematize the idea of social construction in relation to Wikipedia's use. In short, Wikipedia is a tool for harvesting. (The end is nigh.)
Housed within the genre of "encyclopedia entry" we might question conventions like what makes a good topic, how do you distinguish between subjectivity and objectivity, and how is the accumulation or production of knowledge grounded in pedagogical application...
Hypertext reading is an advent of modern technology that allows us to read laterally in a way we could not otherwise.