you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 19 points 2 years ago (7 children)

This serves well as a statement.

It is, however, delusional to think that at this point anything can become a viable alternative to Wikipedia, unless Wikimedia collapses because of reasons from within.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    All the more reason to push this project forward, as a redundancy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    You can already download the entirity of Wikipedia. If it ever fell, the content could easily be restored elsewhere.

    Also, I don't think I understand why this should be federated.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    The infrastructure is already there in that case, to restore it, and it would be less likely to fall.

    Having no sole source of information hosting in an encyclopedic format is safer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    But having an open data project full of information that's actively contributed to and fact checked, with copies over many servers, is much better than having the same thing but fragmented. I still don't see a reason. If it was something else or corporate driven, I wouldn't bat an eye. But Wikipedia?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment