I've thought a lot about this as well and think what you presented is good.
I'd like to add the one problem that has usually motivated me to think about this problem the way you have: Academic works can contain ideas or data that becomes outdated or is found to be incorrect.
If you're not an expert in a niche, it's hard to sift this out when you come across it. It seems intellectually wasteful to have works that are, for example, 90% accurate and relevant, but have an idea that needs to be updated or tossed. An example of a field where I believe this happens too often is in economics.
Alone, I don't have the time to keep up and fact check everything I read, but collaborative editing could help a lot in this area.
>First, I’ve designed an attempted successor to Wikipedia and/or Tumblr and/or peer review, and a friend of mine is working full-time on implementing it.
Nope. I'm certainly not working full time on this. (And I've only briefly met Eliezer once.) Would be very interested to know what that friend is up to, though...
