I fear we may be at a low point in special interest publishing: I also hope we are at the low point.
The problem, of course, is the Net. There is a huge amount of stuff on line, good enough to make it really hard for print publishers. On the other hand, a lot of what is on line is rubbish, and some of the best photographs are not available.
For the most part, what goes on line is free, so professional writers won't do it, still less will anyone pay for editing, and no one has the funding to get the rights for the best pictures. Paywalls are very unpopular (I find I have a quite irrational prejudice against them myself, for some reason), and even Rupert Murdoch hasn't yet found a way to make payment for on-line content really work, apparently. But the BBC Music Magazine, for one, seems to manage to do a hybrid print and digital version fairly well, combined with podcasts (it has to be said they're only half-hearted about digital, because it's just a reproduction of the print format, not re-thought for the Web).
If there is hope, I'm pretty sure it lies in existing print magazines, with experience in commissioning and editing material (curating knowledge) going on line and exploring what they can do. I really hope, and kind of believe, that it should be possible to sustain "publications" of even more specialist interest than the old magazines whose passing we mourn. Given that in a lot of cases, good writing can be had from people who will see it as a remunerative hobby, not a livelihood, it ought to be possible to keep something going with only a very small number of full-time staff, and very little in the way of costs for physical things.
Basically, it wouldn't be hard to be better than Wikipedia (useful though it is), but to make money it will need to be consistently a lot better.
And good luck to everyone concerned.