Hi!
I think here you're confusing the issues of quantity and quality. Writing 'quality pages', or inviting academics to do so, isn't the way to boost page count quickly. And I'm sure many academics would be less interested in the number of articles a wikipedia has than the quality of those articles anyway. Perhaps it would be better to forget about page count and focus on improving the overall quality of wikipedia.
Yes, and high quality often acts as a barrier against massive partecipation. I myself would think twice before changing a word on the Britannica... Some balance must be reached, though, because quality is what makes reading a wiki interesting for the public. It's also very difficult to judge how the quality vs quantity balance is achieved in a single wiki, since the first term of the equation is mainly a subjective parameter.
I guess the main thing a wiki needs is a solid group of managers, that are capable of attracting quality from academical level environments (we are contacting university teachers who have retired, for example) and at the same time can put up a good "village pump", where people may socialize and become community members. Not an easy thing, though. Many people who love culture and may be wonderful researchers might lack the socializing capability that is needed to build a constructive environment.
A wiki is a world in itself, a book that writes itself. But directors are needed, unless you want the story to go nowhere. Bulding a good PR team means more than achieving a quick rise in published page numbers by running bots to make millions of empty stubs. Nonetheless, empty stubs are necessary to shape content growth... It's a HUGE job, as I am realizing.
Bèrto