"Forefront of discussion" is a phrase that caught my attention. We overlook the psychological aspects of these medias and focus too much on the technology associated with them. Technology is merely a vessel on which we carry out our discussion when the platform on which we create our networks says more than anything. You mention how blogs have a more personal slant while wikis can have anything or be based on a set theme. This means that we used our sociable nature as humans to do something we find the primal need to do:"discuss". We broke down our forms of discussion into a heavily one sided one or community one. In blogs we want to voice our opinions mainly, while giving people the option to add comments on a secondary level. While on the other hand, wikis put everyone on an even playing field.

Although it’s a basic part of the assignment and something I had to define as well, I especially like your definition or, rather, distinction between blogs and wikis. Wikis being a “user-generated [encyclopedia] in which anyone can contribute to a page written about anything”, whereas blogs being more personal — and often under the gaze of that said “person.” With these distinctions, it’s easy to tell why blogs may be more susceptible to being altered to look a certain way, whereas wikis are vulnerable to be altered to spread misinformation.

I think your wiki idea also supports convergence, as your real life example showcases contributions by people in the internet. I’ve seen many other instances online where people group up together and give their two cents in a thread to better help an “investigation.”