I completely agree. I think Wikipedia should stop trying to be an encyclopaedia and start being a source of encyclopaedic information. The whole notability blame game detracts from it overall. Sure some elementary school in North-East Canada might seem useless now but in 500 years that entire area might be a huge city. History tells us that sometimes inane details from the past become our keys to understanding the past and our world. I think it is unfortunate that Wikipedia tries to assess what is important in the future by a clique's definition of what is important to them now.

It is a question of verifiability and maintainability. Why you would think that having broken windows would help is beyond me.

Indeed, the strict 'encyclopedic' standard that got Wikipedia this far, as a defense against lots of problems, is now itself a damaging constraint.

I'll soon be launching a reference site called Thunkpedia which loosens the 'encyclopedic' standard, but adds other constraints in its place.

There's a video about my motivations, and a sneak peek of its interface, at http://thunkpedia.org. More discussion is at the project blog, http://infinithree.org (from the original codename).

I've been looking forward to adding to the list of unsuccessful inclusionist Wikipedia forks.

A fork which only flips the 'inclusionist' bit is clearly the wrong approach.

Wikipedia is still very good, and a fork with the same 'encyclopedic' mission, software, and general format – but inclusionist – would inherit all the stresses that made Wikipedia become deletionist. It'd also still have to compete with Wikipedia for the critical mass of attention and contributors who like everything about Wikipedia except for the deletionism.

The reference-information successes have explored territory a bit further from Wikipedia, in content (Wikia, wikiHow, tvTropes) and format (StackOverflow, Quora, IMDB)... so that's what Thunkpedia is doing too. Whether it succeeds or fails, it won't fit neatly into your list of 'inclusionist Wikipedia forks'.