Preamble: Wikipedia is NOT a public sphere.
Web 2.0 Criticism of original research
FayssalF claims that the entry in criticism was synthesis. Jehcochman claims it is original research. Yet neither of wikipedia editor provide specific detail as to how their claims are valid. Simply stating a thing does not make it true, it makes it a matter of opinion unless it support by verifiable fact (or at least some supporting reasoning) In the case of both editors I would think it a matter of uniformed opinion and perhaps to a certain extent me not being clear enough on my point.
And now to the point.
The criticism is specific to the language use to describe Web 2.0 by using grandiose terms that lead to hyper-inflated expectations of the object being described. THAT is not original research. One need to simply read wikinomics to get a good does of tech-utopianism rhetoric. It is NOT personal opinion that Web 2.0 is hyper-inflated. Simply read the Gartner report that details Web 2.0 heading into the trough of disillusionment. To paraphrase the report, Web 2.0 whatever it is, will not be useful for another two years.
The rhetoric of the technological sublime is neither original or new but is grounded in mass communication theory based on works of Adorno and James Carey; to name a few.
I don’t know who the “us” are the editor refers to but it seems to me absurd to proffer to represent an authority and claim to be the speaker of the ambiguous “us”.
However I’m willing to oblige ignorance on a subject matter and provide the specific reference I mentioned. A simple google search would turn up the result. Then again I’m not guilty; you are the accuser and at least according to western practice the burden of proof is on the accuser not the accused. Perhaps you should do your own research to validate your claims of original research, synthesis or whatever wikipedia jargon clap trap the ‘us’ you represent wishes to throw at the public.