Online social communities are no different than real life communities. Whoever is active gets the most notice.

Lots of folks like to browse and not participate--that does not mean they are excluded from the process.

The only thing I'll say to disagree is that while true they are free to not participate - when they chose to the going can get rough. My experience with Usenet and Blogs is that regulars do NOT like newcomers getting their piece of the action. In that way it is very much like the real world. The only difference between them is that it is much easier to intimidate someone electronically than it is to do so physically. That may sound counter-intuitive, but I've always found it to be true - your mileage may vary though.

It's not that the most active people get more notice, it's that they're handed a megaphone. I think the article's main point is that even the sites that are held up as the paragons of Web 2.0 aren't truly based on "the wisdom of crowds," there is additional finessing going on. It's probably necessary, it just shows that things aren't quite as egalitarian as they seem in this Bold New Era.

Well said Eigenvector.

I don't know about the intimidation part, but otherwise, this is true. This one of the reasons I avoid blog and usenet unless I think it is the only way to find what I need. Digg, likewise.

Wikipedia, though, is not an online social community. On some smaller articles frequent editors may get to know each other, but outsiders are hardly unwelcome. At least that's been my experience -- most of the articles I've been edited have been in physics & math, which even in academia have more open cultures than some other fields, so maybe maybe I'm missing out on some of the cliquishness you're alluding too.