The thing is, the model doesn't seem likely to die at all. It appeals to egotism and has a self-perpetuating hierarchy of wankery that will exist as long as the site has traffic. While there is a limited degree of quality control lest the site become discredited, what is lost in this process is non-bias

The Wikipedia model places quantity over quality in a manner slightly more focussed than general web articles and much more centralized. It is roughly the "google" hub of encyclopedic data, providing a projection for users to personalize much like personal websites only in a slightly uniform manner. What the site has done is successfully link together and integrate isolated personal sites into a cohesive whole. This doesn't mean that any of the people who run these sites are credible, non-biased, or not in it for petty personal reasons, but it does mean that it did become a major website.

Personally, I don't think there are many feasible alternatives on the web to this style if a site wants to be big. Enough quantity built up eventually yields some level of quality: What Wikipedia has done is tie together the bare minimum of compromise needed to engage the maximum number of users possible. It has effectively outproduced slow-moving scholarly or profit-based encyclopedias as a result