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.