The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age by - reading response

I have to admit that I am a little embarrassed to see everyone else capable of posting a website properly (so I can link directly to it) and only me having to refer to a written out website address (could someone hint me how to succeed in doing so too?)...
So this will be a first reading response.
Davidson and Goldberg in their The Future of Learning Institutions in a Digital Age emphasize the shift in “learning itself“ as a “shared and interactive learning” (1) rather than foregrounding the technology of our age of digital media (education). Their project of a collaborative writing (exemplified through posting their essay first on Commentpress) through the possibility for every reader to add comments and give feedback follows this ideal of a “non-proprietary production” (24). Every reader is a potential author participating in the creation of a hypertext, an open-ended text. The idea of the author is thus mobilized as is the idea of the text and of writing which is also to say in learning itself – there is no single name referring to a social being authentically located in space and time or else the only source of action and decision. Anonymity and the invisibility of the institutional background (and thus of one's 'identity') facilitate, according to Goldberg and Davidson, that “[p]eople can respond candidly” (16). Furthermore one learns how to allow for and deal with criticism from unknown (and thus seemingly less legitimate) others; and to reconsider the making of judgments. The notion of a shared learning/writing did not least remind me of Derrida's notion of writing as something that cannot be referred back to one single origin, but always implies the inscription of the other and can only persist in this (back and forth) movement (not least of reading that adds a supplemental layer of meaning and understanding).
However praiseful of the accessible, horizontal, networking act of writing and learning, I am glad the two authors (and for me they still remain the 'main authors') acknowledge the “digital divide” (6) that is not only about the distribution of access according to wealth, but also about race, gender and age (as far as I remember is not really addressed here and in which context I would also like to know more about the usual association of digital media (education) with the younger part of society and of course teachers, but less senior citizens). What about the Commentpress project, I would continue along these lines then, and the idea of unrestricted participation? Will it not be mainly people from the academia or at least equipped with a certain expertise about digital media (education) that participate herein and can it really be a goal to let everyone (unselective of knowledge and the contributory value) participate? And who is the one ultimately deciding what will be included/excluded into the original draft? Yes, is the idea really that different from submitting a draft to a (though larger) group of experts that comment on it before publication?
What I liked very much in this approach towards a pedagogy of participation though is the linking towards an understanding/definition of citizenship and how this idea changes not least according to discourses within as well as of education and that with their “Ten Principles for the Future of Learning” (26) the authors provide us with the means to question (the conditions of) these very discourses.