This wording is unnecessary, but I agree that Wikipedia is quite harmed by some-to-many of its favored policies and editors. I've recently been turned on to Justapedia, a fork project that seems to want to avoid such petty-baron problems by vastly extending the scope of included information. Hopefully they or some other project crack the code for a reliable, free, easy to update online encyclopedia again.
I think it is great that we have yet another encylopedia, but the bar have to be set higher than Wikipedia to be a serious competition.
Bluntly and from experience starting a new encylopedia is hard so lets be honest that is mostly used by the far right which makes it a strange place for other people. My personal feeling is that having more stuff than Wikipedia is almost impossible in a fair way, even the more rigorous Wikidata is an almost impossible project. Discussing this is troublesome because complaining about the contents
of an article is not the same as actually taking the time to write the article. Which is why it is also nice to have similarly licensed alternatives
Phiwise_|1 year ago
emj|1 year ago
Bluntly and from experience starting a new encylopedia is hard so lets be honest that is mostly used by the far right which makes it a strange place for other people. My personal feeling is that having more stuff than Wikipedia is almost impossible in a fair way, even the more rigorous Wikidata is an almost impossible project. Discussing this is troublesome because complaining about the contents of an article is not the same as actually taking the time to write the article. Which is why it is also nice to have similarly licensed alternatives