So I took two things away from the first 7 minutes of this - I've re-listened so many damn times because people keep interrupting my though process 1. Wikipedia is CRAZY ambitious. Their goal was to give every person on the globe access to an encyclopedia. It seems so normal and apparent now but I can only imagine the looks he got when he had a small community of people and the idea was still in the process of being developed. 2. It took wikipedia 4 years to have any sort of huge growth and it all stemmed from an error about a national news writer which generated subsequent national media coverage. This one innocuous error tripled their page views overnight. Now. How can we apply this new knowledge to Hubski? Hmm.... :P Oh no! Carl Kasell reading LOLcat captions. The world might end.
Well, the key for Wikipedia's growth is that there is no centralization (so the intelligence is completely distributed) and it is completely crowdsourced. The principles upon which Hubski is based are not dissimilar. Individuals users must have the power. The main difference, in my mind, between us and Wikipedia is that we are collectively building a discussion community and Wikipedia is collectively building a global encyclopedia. If there is anything to take from Wiki it may be that there should be some meta-project that everyone is collectively working towards and can see real improvement in. Not sure what that could be. Not sure if my comment is rambling non-sense either.