It still manages to outcompete the Encyclopaedia Britannica which operates through market mechanisms where it pays people to write articles.
Irrelevant. The question at hand is how to allocate resources. Britannica is also a trivial resource allocation problem. Wikipedia gets volunteer labour for free on a massive scale, whereas Britannica has to pay. The fact that wikipedia therefore wins is nothing to do with allocation
How much money would it take to engineer biological immortality for at least half of the world's population, within 20 years, with 99% confidence?