(I doubt Rand would have been a fan of Wikipedia FWIW, no matter how much Jimbo loved her books. Actually, scratch that, I'm certain she'd have despised Wikipedia even without reading it and realising how liberal the average contributor is. Not too much virtuous selfishness in collaborative, pseudo-democratic editing of a reward-free commons or indeed the Wikipedia begging bowl)
Poor old Henry George has to settle for being admired by the likes of Albert Einstein, Henry Ford, Winston Churchill, Sun Yat Sen, and Rand's own architectural muse Frank Lloyd Wright (some of them were nearly as bad at being Georgists as Jimmy Wales was at being an Objectivist). So as overtly simplistic as I think his economics was, I'd guess he had that going for him.
As for wikipedia happening to be on the internet, well whatever. You could make the same argument about money in general, since that is backed by the state.
Moreover, your argument that ignoring rand has done more for X is not inconsistent with the fact that using rand's philosophy has done more than using george's philosophy.
On the other hand Wikipedia is a small subset of that web resulting from a collaboration between two people that met over a still-unresolved argument about Rand's merits or lack thereof, so Randian philosophy wasn't even sufficient for Jimbo to get anything done without the support of someone who thought she was full of shit. (Ironic considering Rand's aversion to diversity of thought). Having been on the web before Wikipedia even existed, I'm going to go out on a limb and say the repository of information would have existed even if Jimmy had never touched a keyboard, or had bonded with Sanger over Dungeons and Dragons instead (would that have made D&D the philosophical root of Wikipedia?). I mean, the idea that neckbeards obsessed with correctness would create an eventually consistent information store via dialectical process isn't exactly a philosophical starting point close to Randian principles, still less one nobody else would have been likely to experiment with.
Famed radical non-Trinitarian Bible-nut Newton was driven by the stated belief that he was observing the need for a deity to interact with the universe, but I'm not convinced that unorthodox Scriptural interpretation can claim any particular merit as a belief system on account of being the motivation for an individual influential physicist. Though physics is a lot more impressive than Wikipedia, so it has that going for it.
