I think you can beat wikipedia by focusing on its weaknesses, but anonymity is not one of them, per se (at best it's a weakness as well as a strength). Notabil

I think you can beat wikipedia by focusing on its weaknesses, but anonymity is not one of them, per se (at best it's a weakness as well as a strength). Notability: a dumb policy that is more harmful than good. Mod/admin power tripping: this is where anonymous edits might be a weakness because they validate the existence of mods who think they contribute more to the site than they actually do. Maybe some sort of gamification/karma system would be workable. Weak sourcing constraints: wikipedia's criteria for a good source are basically "some notable entity believes it". A site that invested a significant amount of resources in valuing and even hosting and validating primary sources and more rigorous sourcing of facts would be a tremendous complement to wikipedia. Clumsy formatting: wiki markup is definitely holding back wikipedia, there are other ways to present data and there are opportunities for competitors to take advantage of better presentation systems (not just prettier or easier but more usable and practical).