I'd add Douglas Rushkoff to the wiki-art canon:http://rhizome.org/editorial/851
Below are some thoughts from a recent interview I gave that seem relevant, particularly regarding the "discreteness" of the art object. Benjamin pinpointed the decay of the "original" auratic art object. Fluxus, Cage, and Kaprow challenged the primacy of any single instantiation of the art object, replacing it with open-ended instructions that led to an infinite number of variable instantiations. (Theater and "classical" western musical notation had already done this, they just didn't realize it. No two performances of "The Tempest" are ever exactly alike.) My practice has led me to question the "discreteness" of an art "work." Perhaps "canonizability" or "recognizability" or "attributability" are better terms.
I am currently interested (from a critical and artistic perspective) in online meme dispersal, microcosmic and macrocosmic ways of modulating culture, hijacking specific google search terms, web surfing as a form of subjective narration, marketing/mind-control, and invisibility via hyper-saturation. Alex Galloway suggests that the destruction of the network is already inherent and dormant in its own architecture. The way to achieve this collapse is via hypertrophy -- pushing the network beyond what it is capable of sustaining. To me, this suggests establishing thousands of mySpace, Twitter, youTube, and delicious accounts, and pummeling the network with rigorously purposeful, (de/re)contextualized media -- to play the entire network as one huge, nefarious instrument. What is sacrificed in the ability to subtly control any single piece of media is made up for by the accumulation of massive agency. This is a dangerous proposition.
I'm proposing a form of resistant/tactical media, but one not afraid to co-opt and implement corporate consumer strategies. It is simultaneously subversive and overt. It is fluid enough to have discrete manifestations in offline galleries, to take on non-"new media" forms, to assume the form of critical essays, books, and talks. It is basically a project of ongoing, widely-dispersed, inflected language...
If, as an artist, I "play" the entire network as my instrument, then I don't have to wait for some art organization to curate my "work," because my work is an ongoing performance of the network. If I can hijack google and cause it to display the images and links I want for the key words that I choose to appropriate, then I blur the line between performance, marketing, and mind-control. I am no longer trying to drive people to my discrete piece of online art work, as contextualized and labeled by an online arts organization. The search results that people get when they do a key word search at google is itself my art performance...
It gets even more interesting from the perspective of an academic researcher and writer. What is the value of online listserv and bulletin board dialogue compared to having a peer-reviewed article published in an offline academic journal? What is the value of talking to a bunch of commercial web designers about web design praxis compared to talking to a few academics and curators about net art theory? For that matter, what is the value of teaching a bunch of students how to make art compared to making art myself? The good news is, I don't have to commit to just one approach.
I would add that un-canonizability is not limited to wikimeda. The person who first rickrolled, or the person who posted the first screenshots that eventually led to "all your base are belong to us," -- these people are not simply anonymous by preference; they are historically undocumented and journalistically unknown. These moves could be considered "The Practice of Everyday Life" Online. They already have their own agency. To classify them as "art" arguably limits their original agency by sequestering and quarantining them.
I am interested in where your research leads on this topic. I'm particularly interested in the (pre-net) historical precedences you choose to track. de Certeau, Debord, and even McLuhan seem useful in this regard. Was May '68 the most (un)spectacular art performance of the 20th Century? Is it Debord's "piece?" Does it matter?