I agree about the liability part. My interest was piqued during the so called Twitter files, when reporting was something like the bosses of twitter, Facebook and Wikipedia sat in a weekly (or was it monthly?) meeting, where they were told what controversial topics to “tamp down” on. I found it very weird, especially since I cannot imagine how one “tamps down” on a wikipedia article?
I think the much harder part is how would you go about democratising a website?
Megaman_EXE@beehaw.org 2 weeks ago
I find it reassuring that Wikipedia is doing it’s best to try and maintain truth and accountability. I agree they should be hosted in a different place.
Side thought/my own ramblings here: Has there ever been hosting where the information is scattered across the world rather than one localized spot? That seems like it might be helpful, but I honestly don’t know enough about site hosting
lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 weeks ago
In a certain sense we are using a system like this, due to federation. I don’t think the exact same model would work well for Wikipedia, but it could try something similar.