It’s impractical and unlikely, bordering on impossible. Deletionists have driven a lot of productive contributors out of the projects through shady tactics like “wikilawyering” and gaming the system. You can look at this essay by Gwern to see what I’m talking about.

Because that’s an old habit which is carried over from Reddit.

That’s right. You’re almost certainly looking at the tip of the iceberg. Let’s hope that the discovery processes will be extensive.

deleted by creator

Removed by mod

Just to be clear, we’re not against the general notion of “free knowledge movement”. Rather we’d love it if there are viable competitors to Wikipedia.

Edit: You can always go to dumps.wikimedia.org to download a copy of Wikipedia encyclopedic articles and start a fork from there.

That’s doesn’t mean that the story isn’t credible though. Here’s a PDF to the court document.

Either way there should be competitors to Wikipedia. One of the promising projects is ibis.wiki but so far there’s no function to integrate Wiki markup yet.

Why is your username Wikipedia sucks lol?

Because this is a multiple-used shared identity by a number of whistleblowers who wants to protect their identity. The lawsuit basically vindicates what we’re trying to warn people about over the past few months.

Thanks! Hopefully there’s a way to incorporate the conversion tool to the federated encyclopedia’s interfaces in the near future.

Ibis really should maintain itself as the competitor to Wikipedia, given recent media attention on systemic issues such as content distortions at Native American history topic area.

Removed by mod

I’d take their answers over yours because they’re a well-known lawyers group who is super-into privacy rights activism and they even are saying that they are compiling instances of so-called “troll pages” on German Wikipedia so that they can file a complaint to the relevant DPAs one day.

In this context I think you need to be mindful of the argument from ignorance fallacy; just because something has not happened or has not been proven either way, doesn’t mean that it’s not going to happen in the future.

Note: Original comment was a statement that Wikipedia should shift its rules enforcement approach to disruptive behaviors, instead of persons which have cause a lot of issues related to freedom of expression and liberty, particularly if they’ve refrained from further disruptive actions and are coming back to the encyclopedia on another account in good faith. Not sure why the mod is miscontruing it as a violation of Rule 1.

Except for those publicly visible sock-shaming and investigations pages, mark my words they’re going to be their Achilles heels one day. I’ve already asked some GDPR lawyers about it a long time ago and they agreed with me on that.

Except that they’ll have to remove those sockpuppet investigation pages if they want to move to the EU due to GDPR.

What I’m not seeing is any suggestion of a solution. Wikipedia has a slew of rigorous mechanisms to allow for community moderation, resolution/stoppage of edit wars, and well documented escalation paths. It has flaws, and it is a work of volunteers with inherent biases, hence the systems to address them. Instead of curating a list of deficiencies, it may be more effective to start building a list of potential solutions to the deficiencies at hand. If you were to take the existing model of Wikipedia, it’s rules, it’s moderation… What would you change to improve it? And more importantly, how?

Good question. One good approach would be to create as many Wikipedia alternatives as you can, which is actually doable through newly released ibis.wiki. There’s also Encycla, Justapedia and Namu.wiki to pick from, although because of Google is putting it high up in their search results, almost all earlier alternatives failed to get off the ground and gather enough momentum.

Cory Doctorow’s theory of enshittification can be applied to this one. According to him there are four constraints that prevent enshittification: competition, regulation, self-help and labor. Normally the first and the third one would be sufficient but as I see that Wikipedia has entered a terminal phase with those sexual scandals and so on, which would cause the Internet to turn against Wikipedia overnight, all the constraints would therefore have to be activated in this case. A likely result would entail Wikipedia liquidating and getting absorbed into more better, successor encyclopedic organizations, like how the League of Nations folded into the United Nations at the end of WWII.

Please feel free to read this Reddit page which collects or summarizes a list of scandals and issues on Wikipedia.

The systemic toxicity issues in Wikipedia, many of which aren’t even remotely related to Israel-Palestinian conflict, are increasingly looking like their Achilles heels.

They would have to delete their “sockpuppet investigations” pages and so on first before they can move there, otherwise they would violate GDPR.