zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
I know this is weak medicine, but Wiki is CC licensed.

That means it can be forked if it turns out they are doing more than protecting people from harassment. For now let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

It also has public change logs, so it is easy to have a debate about the presence/absence of censorship.

>>rmrfst+i5
Forking Wikipedia is practically unfeasible without a huge organizational effort. And will probably result in loss of credibility of both branches.

The public logs are there since ever, so does the censorship (some amount of it).