There are some aspects of the book I didn't like very much. For example, it looks like the author has applied one of the Wikipedia editing principles: "No original research". All the information in the book is compiled from publicly available sources; there are no new interviews. Numerous biographies of geeks are rather boring, and most of the additional material about Linux, Free Software Foundation, Mozilla, etc. belongs in sidebars, not main text. (I was reading Chris Anderson's "Free" at the same time and it is amazing how much of that general material is echoed in both books.)
That being said, I am positive you will learn something new from "The Wikipedia Revolution" (unless you are a seasoned wikipedian, of course). Like the intricacies of maintaining three different scripts of the same language (check out Kazakh Wikipedia), for example. Or what roles in the organization are played by administrators and bots. Or what happened when someone googled the word "jew" and didn't like what he saw.
But in my opinion, the most interesting part discusses various controversies surrounding Wikipedia. How does a quality of articles produced by countless anonymous contributors compare with the quality of established encyclopedias, such as Britannica? How does the open system protect itself from vandalism and libel without becoming a closed system? How many articles is too much? (Does every high school need to have an entry? What about elementary schools?) Last but not least, what happened when it was revealed that a prominent Wikipedia contributor and administrator falsely pretended to be a university professor?
Enjoy the book!