Hello Pierre-Carl Langlais,
I believe that [Wiki-research-l] can use more research like yours that attempts to generalize the findings from the previous literature.
Have you considered using "meta-analyses" of case studies so as to provide a bit more methodological grounding? I am not a methodologist myself. Still I think your main work is to provide more than just a literature review of 30 case studies. It might work better to convince the readers how you have done more than a literature review.
Also, I am not sure whether you use the two terms "Wiki" and "Wikipedia" as synonym. If your work focus on analyzing the previous literature on 30 case studies on Wikipedia, a special instance of global wiki project, perhaps it is better to use simply the term "Wikipedia". I do not know what to on the subjects as a reader. Some clarification will help. Otherwise I keep thinking if it is about using Wikipedia or about using Wiki the technology.
You might feel a bit of heat over your use of "scientific community" analogy or comparison. All I can say is that it will be very controversial. Not to mention the "no original policy"! One way out might be a historical context. Enyclopedias in enlightenment era are positioned somewhere between scientific journals and the general public. Here the modern citation systems that distinguishes primary- secondary- and tertiary sources may be of use here. I will tend to search for some literature form (Library and) Information Science, or even enlightenment history to make a case of "popular or general scientific community" instead of your phrase of pseudo-scientific community.
Do not worry so much about the critical reviews or comments. Sometimes negative reviews are better than silence.
Best, han-teng liao dphil candidate oxford internet institute