What Makes Peer Production Tick?

Yochai Benkler argues that the peer production model outshines the aging industrial model of the past. He explains that companies using peer production are wildly successful, sometimes more so than even the most stable and powerful industrial organizations, as in the example of the Apache Server, a free, peer produced web server used by some of the the largest, companies around. However, there is a difference between peer production of software and erecting a skyscraper. Most would be quick to point out that a peer produced building would fail. But what makes peer production in the physical world less effective than in the virtual world?
Some may argue that resources could be the difference between peer production in the physical and virtual worlds. The industrial model relies heavily on the markets for funding and supply: people work for the company to get paid and the company charges people for its goods and services (which pays for the supply and employees). In the case of the peer production model, the only thing a person needs to help create a better piece of software, or to help map the craters on the surface of mars in Benkler's case, is time--there need not be a tie to markets. With real world projects, there are physical resources that need to be collected and organized. The important thing is: does this really make the difference? I would argue not. In order to host the vast amounts of information contained on some of the open source software development sites, there has to be physical backing behind it.Thus, the sites turn to advertising, sponsorship, and voluntary donations for up-keeping the servers and other equipment. Sure, maintaining servers is a lot cheaper than constructing a building, but the point remains: Resources make less of a difference than one would expect.
The most defining part of 'peer production' is that the product is made by peers. It follows that the effectiveness of a peer produced project correlates directly to the amount of people participating in it. The only restriction that the peer production has is the amount of people that serve as its collaborative base. Without this 'critical mass' as Benkler described it, there can be no effective change in the system. I argue, that resources are not an issue; if enough people want something, they are likely to help contribute in anyway they can; the matter is getting enough of those people. With such a large group, it becomes easier to make decisions also, as people realize that they will need to have people represent them. Slashdot, for example, filters irrelevant and incorrect information out of the system by having moderators that get their power through the fact that they have demonstrated to the group their trustworthiness and dedication to the system. This model mirrors the system that the representative government of the United States Strives to emulate. Slashdot is often more effective because of the volume of people that have access to, and control over, the site. Peer Production is a more effective system than the top-down industrial system, but only if there are enough people.