In the scientific community (often cited as an example of open source at work) there are two primary sources of information: textbooks and the scientific literature itself. Textbooks, well known by students, are more easily accessible to the general public, and tend to contain larger quantities of tutorial material. The information tends to be dated, but when thousands of students take the same standard courses every year, this is not really a problem. In addition, there are obvious financial incentives to writing for this medium, a problem which has yet to be solved for the web.

The scientific literature, on the other hand, is more like the web. It is fast, immediate and current. Publishing is done to establish a reputation, rather than for financial rewards. The quality of the information here is mixed, but errors are spotted quickly enough for those who are adept at scanning the medium as a whole. This makes it appropriate for experts, but confusing for the neophyte. Without the financial incentives, it is a poorer medium for tutorial material.

The analogy isn't perfect, but I believe that both media will survive. There will likely be quite a bit of dynamic activity as each sorts out its niche in the coming years.