A comparison between the Wikipedia project and the scientific community is not an easy task. But it is possible. The similarity is that both are driven by surprisingly little amount of people. A study in PLOS One http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0101698 has observed the details how many scientific authors are really publishing a paper. The most important insight is, that only 150608 scientist have published at least one paper a year. As active authors with at least 3 papers per year can be counted only 40k scientists worldwide.
Perhaps the study is not very exact, the tables and figures are a little confusing, and the study researched a very long time period. But is seems to be comprehensible that the number of active science-authors is smaller than 100k worldwide. In comparison, the Wikipedia english version, has nearly 20k active volunteers. And the trend is constant, also in future and also under openscience condition, the number of active researchers who are publishing something will not change significantly.
The interesting fact is, that the 100k active worldwide scientific authors are 100% not independent who are writing at home an amateur science article, but they are well funded persons who are working for big universities. Instead of describing the facts neutral, the myth of citizen science and academic social networks is spread out. And some advanced openaccess advocates claims, that something has to change. That can be seen as a joke, nothing has to change in the academic publishing system. It works perfectly and it is absolutely right, that Nature rejects 90% of all incoming manuscripts.
The mistake which are done by Wikipedia and Academic social networks is to ask what should be made different to improve the situation and to motivate young people for engagement. The consequence are projects, which have in mind to increase the number of authors, to lower the barrier to publish something, to improve the visibility of written papers. Instead of follow a goal, the first step would be to analyse the current situation neutral. The question is not who should future of science look like and who we can destroy Elsevier, the more useful question would be, where is the science community today? Is the system broken or not?
My impression is, that the amount of active wikipedia authors and the number of active academic authors are some kind of nature-law which is constant and not changeable by a marketing campaign. Instead of bringing science forward it is time to say that science works. The workflow of paper based high-funded journals is the right one. The quality control is necessary and there is no need for improvements. The supervisor of Ijad Madisch who said “Drop this Firlefanz!” out of his head was right. He understood the publishing system better and ResearchGate will never be a success.