I actually looked into nanowrimo before beginning development on neovella, and it seemed like a great idea. Neovella is a bit different in many many ways, though. Nano even says they want "quantity, not quality". I don't see why you really have to make a compromise. People will write if it's social and fun--my goal is to make it just that, but I do have a long way to go. As an externality of multiple authors, the potential for creativity is hypothetically very high, possibility for writer's block very low, and the capacity for quality work (by a different definition of 'quality') seems to be there too. Why keep writing as a monthly thing? It can be fun!
How much would you like to wager? I'm game. Most people I've witnessed interacting with Wikipedia went there to use it as a quick reference, or to learn about something they heard somewhere and wanted to learn about. In the first group, speed is key--they're squeezing the learning process into a very brief window of curiosity. Qwiki is a time drain, and it's not competitively entertaining compared to something like television, which it somewhat mimics. In the latter group, Qwiki is also too slow and these users jump around the Wikipedia page looking for the details and specific sections instead of the general idea.
Qwiki looks cool because it resembles something that looks like entertainment, perhaps a documentary, but if you release that as a Wikipedia replacement instead of a learning device for the younger crowd, I doubt its competitive potential.
That people used to believe the world was flat. Then I went to college and got my mind blown AGAIN when I learned that this "fact" was actually a blatant lie.