There are two things you mentioned that I found interesting. You mention that VGI can be validated by the very people who contribute to it and those who check it. I would argue that although there are more people who read information posted on some sites such as Wikipedia, these people are not necessarily going to feel any obligation to correct wrong information. In fact, in Geog 407, we discussed that there is in fact a decreasing number of editors on Wikipedia. (See http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125893981183759969.html)I am willing to bet that you have been on Wikipedia many times but have never felt the need (or perhaps had the knowledge) to update a “stub” article or contribute to a discussion on a particular detail.

Secondly, in response to the final question in your post, I would answer with the following. The question posed is interesting, “In a social aspect, will geovisualisation just show the averages in spatial perception?” and I believe there is an answer to that but that it is time dependent. As technology is first presented to the public, it is the newest, most advanced technology there is available to the public. As such, only the portion of the public who has knowledge of that type of technology will be using it initially. However, over a period of time, the knowledge to use that technology would become more widespread and available to many more people and groups allowing even those you would deem outliers or marginal etc. to put forward their own views and uses of a geovisualization technology. Ultimately the technology will empower them to be able to contribute to the Web 2.0. I do agree that there will probably be some kind of ‘mean’ or more common subjects or information types used but that over time there will be a gradual spread of the technology and its use.

-Outdoor Addict