Re:Toxic comments are associated with reduced volunteer edit...
by 6510 on Tuesday December 05, 2023 @12:28PM
(#38533979)
You could make a fantastic fork if you simply stop pretending that credentials can not be validated. It then follows that 5 angry narcissist anons do not equal in value a professor.
Then you can further simplify if you employ expert moderators who have the final say in everything. The infinite size discussions back stage serve no purpose.
I bet people had tons of ideas for other improvements. (think: A distributed system with fancy api's for the robot overlords.)
I wish someone would hard-fork it already and stick to a promise of strictly sticking to the core job of operating wikipedia the website, with a small dedicated team.
Plus they don't need any more money, they have enough money to run it for a long long time already and if they keep doing a good job people will keep donating. I don't understand this model of "we need to ensure we survive forever as fast as possible by accumulating a billion dollar endowment". Nonprofits should have ~5-10 years runway max and keep getting donations if they keep doing a good job. I don't trust any organization forever. What incentive do they have to be useful and welcoming if they have a forever endowment?