Michael E. Raynor limits his commentary to Flavin's discussion of Wikipedia. Flavin argues that Wikipedia is a disruptive innovation, and has disrupted the hard-copy encyclopedia. Flavin sees Wikipedia in optimistic terms, as democratising education and 'reframing the means by which knowledge is produced, distributed and consumed.' He implies that Wikipedia is expanding beyond the classic domain of the encyclopedia, and has the potential to continue an upmarket march into academic publishing and certain types of news, e.g. on corporations. These conclusions are justified if Wikipedia is in fact a disruptive innovation with additional runway for its upmarket march. And the author believes that most people would readily accept the claim that Wikipedia is a disruptive innovation. But it is possible to get this wrong in ways that matter. He makes no definitive claims one way or the other about Wikipedia -- he simply does not know enough to reach a conclusion. However, he does feel that no one has done the research necessary to opine with confidence one way or the other. Consequently, he simply want to open the door to the possibility that Wikipedia might not be a disruptive innovation and describe what he thinks people would need to know to draw a conclusion one way or the other. He will conclude by suggesting why it might be worth having a more informed and generally shared opinion on this matter. [For the original article, "Disruptive Innovation and Technology Enhanced Learning," see EJ1288163.]