Question: what are the pros and cons of having this centralized site versus just having some kind of distributed archive (e.g. the whole site as a torrent or ot

Question: what are the pros and cons of having this centralized site versus just having some kind of distributed archive (e.g. the whole site as a torrent or other format)? I feel like the latter allows people to contribute (e.g. "hosting" / seeding) while also providing many more points of failure resilience. Also: I trust Archive.org (though only because I don't have a reason not to, and I'm generally pretty trusting), but a distributed version could also provide peer validation and probably historical changes over time, instead of having to trust just one (potentially hijacked at any point in time) source. I have the same qualms about Wikipedia. I use both on occasion and have donated on an even rarer occasion, but I always wonder whether a high-traffic website is the best format for an archive of information that only loses money.