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
>requires that any derivative of works from Wikipedia must be released under that same license, must state that it is released under that license, and must acknowledge the contributors (which can be accomplished with a link back to that article on Wikipedia).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks

Looks like you're right. Forking Wikipedia is pretty easy from a licensing perspective.

>>etrabr+06
I like how cc requires making the materials available but it is served as a giant multi TB turd mostly made up of cruft. (think: custom templates) It is also funny how people seem to think anonymous users who cant be identified own copyright to anything. WP has refused to set up a proper identification process.

  2 angry alcoholics > nobel laureate

A [shame] link back to wp? why? They don't own the rights and they are not a reliable host for crediting sources. If WP vanishes you are still obligated to name the authors. (who have no name or address)

The idea is of course nice. It would be more fun if one could easily export a category in various popular formats.