The future of Wikipedia

I think that we have grown a Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a volunteer project that was made possible by Bomis. However, we have invested in our favourite project a lot of enthusiasm, time and (in some cases) money. It is quite natural that we want Wikipedia to prosper.
In my opinion it is a time to stop and discuss. Discuss the future of Wikipedia.
How does Bomis see it ?
How does Nupedia see it ?
How do we ?

The future might be or might not as bright as our imagination whispers into our ears.
Wikipedia is a great idea combined with a new, revolutionary software and it has a lot of brilliant committed authors. Her growth is explosive. But there are also weaknesses (Wikinesses ?) brought into light be some of us.

Reliability

The other side of the free writing style in Wikipedia is quite possible lack of reliability.
This lack of reliability would in the end undermine Wikipedia's credibility and ultimately her success.
This issue must be tackled, and as soon as possible. I don't agree here with Larry Sanger and his view "self-healing". It is an example of elated wishful thinking that is misleading us.
I'd rather agree with Piotr Wozniak. His ideal of reliability is EB and he is anxious about the potential lack of it in Wikipedia.
I am very interested in other people views. To start the creative process of discussion I'll give you my (Kpjas) idea :

Why not create two parallel Wikipedias one public Wikipedia that is almost frozen (apart from Talk pages, Feature requests pages and the like). And the working Wikipedia for contributors. Foreseeing your criticisms of the proposal that it would hamper netizen involvement - Edit this page could lead into the working Wikipedia.

Scalability

There are two ways of Wikipedia growth - global or niche.
If we decide in favour of global growth - being slashdotted only first symptom of a serious problem.
I'll give you my (Kpjas) idea :

Nowadays distributed software solutions are the height of fashion. Why not devise a distributed Wikipedia ? Programmers ?

Multimedia

A picture can say more than, say, several Wikipedia articles.
It is rather trivial.
I think that Wikipedia without pictures, video, and audio is not a real encyclopedia.
I wonder if you think my propositions worthwhile :

AudioWikipedia?, PhotoWikipedia?, VideoWikipedia? - pages that can be linked from the real Wikipedias but having only a title and Talk pages.

Internal data format

This point is connected with <b>Software<b> issue below.
Current data format is otherwise an example of excellent software solution. But understandably the creator of it did not envision the scale of Wikipedia. It poses numerous problems like searching through Wikipedia and others.

My (Kpjas) thoughts wander around XML data format in connection with a free database like MySQL. And your thoughts ?

Editorial process

Much has been said about it but not much done.
We have an excellent and hard-working editor-in-chief - Larry Sanger but I think Wikipedia in current form needs several such editors and when it reaches 100,000 pages 1000 Larrys.
My idea (Kpjas is :

Create editor teams online that would cross national Wikipedias borders. The teams would need tools to work effectively. One, the simplest, in terms of setting it up are separate mailing-list devoted to editorial groups like Architecture, Philosophy and so on.

Software

Like any other open software project the software behind it should be free and open to all.
The same applies to Wikipedia software. As I said above wikipedia software (usemod wiki) is a revolutionary and of very good quality but needs of Wikipedia as a global encyclopedia of unrestrained growth go beyond that kind of software. See also above Internal data format.
On the Wikipedia mailing list BryceHarrington proposed making the Wikipedia software publicly available on CVS? for further collaboration on its development.

Commercial and organizational issues

I'm no good at it. But to me it seems to be one the most important issues, second to wide netizen involvement.
Please, share your feelings and opinions here.