I think that would be great, though I've been thinking of problems that would make it likely not to work that well. There was one fork called "Conservapedia" w

I think that would be great, though I've been thinking of problems that would make it likely not to work that well. There was one fork called "Conservapedia" which aimed to be a conservative POV version of Wikipedia. But they did a bad job in terms of quality and engagement, and it's moved more and more in the direction of political advocacy until all that anyone edits or that appears there is political advocacy content. You could contrast this with the old Catholic Encyclopedia (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/ https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/) which is more like an actual encyclopedia that someone, including a non-Catholic, would actually want to use to get the Catholic perspective on a topic. Wikipedia's NPOV policy is impressive and the community's efforts to apply it are impressive, but it's ultimately very difficult to find an objective NPOV account of things, and one that's satisfactory to everyone. One difficulty here is the Undue Weight policy (which, to be clear, is probably necessary to make NPOV workable). This says, in effect, that it's considered NPOV to mention something at greater length than its relevance to the topic at hand warrants, or in a context where it's not particularly important. Unfortunately judgments of relevance, salience, or importance are themselves quite POV and Wikipedia's solution is mostly to rely on "reliable sources" -- typically published journalistic and academic writing. But journalistic and academic writing itself contains all sorts of biases (many of which Wikipedians are extremely aware of and have discussed at some length), including the likelihood that nobody will have actually written a journalistic analysis of the Mormon/vegan/Russian government/left-anarchist/Hindu nationalist/Reformed Christian/Maoist/gender-critical/Extinction Rebellion take on specific person or topic X. Which could very likely, if it existed, place much more weight on some aspect or issue than would be considered "due" in most other published analyses. You can also read many Wikipedia articles and see that, to the extent they relied on sources, the sources all held the view that the subject of the article was good/legitimate/appropriate/normal, or was bad/illegitimate/sketchy/questionable, and it is in principle "NPOV" to not report on any other views (if they don't have reliable sources mentioning them). However there must be people who have substantive reasons to take another perspective but don't have the ability, resources, motivation, or desire to produce reliable sources reflecting that perspective. In the absence of that, those views can be described in their own article but can't be used to color any other article. I think forks always have a huge network effects problem. There was a famous Wikipedia fork called Enciclopedia Libre y Universal en Español, which started as a result of ideological disagreements with or concerns about Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_en_Espa%C3%B1ol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enciclopedia_Libre_Universal_e... The Enciclopedia Libre was bigger than Wikipedia for two years but ended up getting surpassed by Wikipedia, I think largely due to network effects. Even now if you wanted to make a fork based on an ideological disagreement, or in order to be consciously and avowedly POV in some way, you would have to find people who wanted to actively edit and maintain a whole encyclopedia with high quality standards -- which is probably tough because Wikipedia has, by default, the mindshare, brand, infrastructure, and community to be the most comprehensive and up-to-date. I don't see an obvious way out of this quandary, even though I would love for there to be more thorough, high-quality POV encyclopedias.