George Landow brings up come complex points in his book Hypertext 3.0.  In chapter 4, When he discuses how one reads, then one writes, and then one reads some more.  He states “Hypertext, which creates an active, even intrusive reader, carries this convergence of activities one step closer to completion; but in so doing, it infringes on the power of the writer, removing some if and granting it to the reader” (p. 125). He goes on to say how hypertext essentially makes readers authors and coauthors –giving readers the ability to add links and texts to what is read. 

In that sense, we are co-authors because we are not changing what is being written, but the ability to comment allows us to have some impact on it. So instead of just reading, now we are able to infringe our opinions right there placing our opinions on the world. In turn, “hypertext [actually] reduces the autonomy of the author.” The idea that hypertext allows the reader a voice in the piece he or she is reading, can be both good and bad. What does this mean for the author? What is the point of stating your opinion when other people can just come into it and disagree, and perhaps change the opinions of all others.

Overall, I felt this text reminding me a bit of Fleck. Int he way ideas can change within communities.  I feel hypertext can be used as a tool to which this is facilitated. The overall picture holds true, I believe of any text on the computer. If it is posted it can now be commented, just like we learned in diigo. All someone has to do with create a group. This is very much a shift int he way things have been, and is important to see how the change is gradually taking place. Maybe then we won’t be so shocked when, all of a sudden, things are different.