Better alternative to Wikipedia?

I came across Ezclopedia (alpha), a new knowledge sharing website that seems to be an alternative to Wikipedia. It’s described as: “an online, knowledge sharing website that provides a better alternative for qualified individuals to share their knowledge and provide free, reliable, trustworthy information and get the credit and revenue sharing they deserve for their sincere, knowledgeable efforts”.

And it seems to be organised around three key features:

• collaboration will produce high quality articles: the author who starts off an article is called the Lead Author, whilst those who contribute are referred to as Co-Authors. The Lead Author can invite others to contribute and function as Co-Authors or people can apply to become Co-Authors. Either way, the Lead Author has complete control over who contributes or edits. If you don’t want a Co-Author, you can request a peer-review of an article or you can apply to be a peer-reviewer.
• healthy competition will produce high quality articles: Ezclopedia allows different authors or groups of authors to write articles using the same title. Readers will be able to gain different perspectives of the topic and will ultimately have the power to rank an article higher than others on the same topic.
• authors should receive the appreciation, recognition and reward they deserve (gasp!!): Ezclopedia is a for-profit organisation and they believe it is unethical to directly or indirectly use the content contributed by authors to earn profits without sharing said profits with authors.

Apparently, around 1 million people use Ezclopedia daily – make that 1 million + one now that I’ve stumbled onto the site. It seems to be concentrating on developing trustworthy content, peer-reviewed content, editing control and….credit and potential revenue sharing for contributors. Not sure why it’s called Ezclopedia, a bit of a clunky sounding name but hopefully it will give Wikipedia the sort of competition it needs.