This is arguable at best. But how about this for an opener: I'll wager a crisp orange Hong Kong banknote that there are more avid golfers than blog or wiki devotees among our readership.
Why? Because as the collective news-and-info cybersphere expands, the credibility of the source becomes increasingly important. Many journos responding to the CEO's comments pointed out that few readers would consider a blog flogging spoon-fed information from a PR firm or a vendor as a more reliable source than the New York Times, Guardian or the SCMP.
Blogs and wikis are great media outlets. But blogs usually complement discussions that inevitably take place after any news item or report comes out. They seldom if ever break news stories (although it could be argued that responsible bloggers help serve a media-watchdog role).
And there's a bigger problem with wikis and blogs--who enforces quality control? While the Guardian may be leftist, the Daily Telegraph quite obviously the opposite and the Times unashamedly Blairite, these all follow strict editorial guidelines. Be it the BBC, ATV or TVB, there are procedures that must be adhered to for each and every report generated. These all have editorial guidelines and policies that ensure all articles are rigorously fact-checked, sources verified, quotes confirmed and any signs of bias are within the agreed and accepted editorial direction and positioning of that media. Without this any media loses its trust with its audience and any semblance of authority.
Wikipedia is a great source of information on myriad subjects, including some the mainstream media hasn't covered in depth, if at all. But there are also examples of outright falsehoods being posted on Wikipedia. You know when you look up a term in the Encyclopedia Britannica that rigorous procedures have been applied to ensure that definition is as close to correct as humanly possible--that's isn't the case with a wiki.
As tools for community building, a source of reference and even as tools for citizen and community-based journalism, I think blogs and wikis serve a key role. But, caveat emptor. The grassroots nature of these new media mean that quality control is ad hoc. The consensus decides and collective QC is applied, which is all fine in theory if you have a consistent group or community who is fair-minded and contains a healthy mix of members with enough differences in opinion to provide balance.
Very unlikely in the online world of staunchly supported tight-knit groups. The chances are that most blogs, wikis and community sites tend to bring together like-minded and opinioned souls, all looking to share their own views of the world among others with much the same views. When they're not flaming one another.
I think blogs and wikis will continue to thrive and find a role in building communities and offering people to opportunity to share their views, comments and engage in ways not possible before. They will also provide useful nuggets of information that often would remain buried.
But they should not herald a diminished role for the traditional media. In fact the reverse is true--as other media channels and innovations emerge, the glut of information blasting down people's broadband connections will mean any right-minded individual is going to rely increasingly on his or her trusted media to provide the fair and objective view, not the most popular or sensationalist view.
PS: A wiki (according to Wikipedia) is a type of website that allows anyone visiting the site to add, remove, or otherwise edit all content, quickly and easily, often without the need for registration. This ease of interaction and operation makes a wiki an effective tool for collaborative writing. A blog or Weblog (again according to Wikipedia) is a website in which items are posted on a regular basis and displayed with the newest at the top. Like other media, blogs often focus on a particular subject, such as food, politics, or local news.