Do you want the "New Alexandrians" reviewing your articles?

What do you think about this? "As large-scale scientific collaborations become the norm, scientists will rely increasingly on distributed methods of collecting data, verifying discoveries, and testing hypotheses, not only to speed things up, but to improve the veracity of scientific knowledge itself. Rapid, iterative, and open-access publishing will engage a great proportion of the scientific community in the peer-review process. Results will be vetted by hundreds of participants on the fly, not by a handfull of anonymous referees, up to a year later. This in turn, will allow new knowledge to flow more quickly in practical uses and enterprises." Wikinomics, Tapscott & Williams, 159-160. I think this is coming, but not without some problems. If such vetting were to replace the typical peer review process we have now, we'd have to know whether reviewers were in engaged in what H. Paul Grice (ordinary language philosopher) called the "Cooperative Principle." Grice knew very well that this wasn't how all exchanges work ("violations" of his principles or maxims were the fun of language analysis). How would we know if reviewers had motive other than "cooperative" ones? Of course, we don't know it now, but having experts picked for their expertise serves to weed out at least some of the "uncooperative" reviews one might get if invisible variables (money) were in play. Wikipedia has certainly given us the example of a "fairly" reliable source of information because experts on the subjects go there to check things out. But is this good enough? Could a combination of free and open posting plus editors (the Wikipedia model now?) give us the best of both? Thoughts?