... academic movement, whereby we reject closed journals, embrace the open source mentality, and collaborate on up-to-date and awesome wikis on every modern research area.

That sounds rather like Scholarpedia's plan

Not completely. And working through the fine print of my disagreement here helps to show just how rich the field of possibilities is for an alternative to the current system.

In some ways, Scholarpedia is more closed than the current print journal system. After all, anyone can start a journal - there are journals of intelligent design studies, for example. But it probably would not be possible to get Dr. Izhikevich's approval for an encyclopedia of ID under the scholarpedia umbrella, nor to get the curator to allow an ID-promoting article into Scholarpedia's evolution encyclopedia. Scholarpedia promotes open access for readers, but not for authors.

There is also some question of whether Scholarpedia embraces the open source mentality - there is the whole complicated question of derivative works.