5 ms·

Do anybody has any hypothesis on why there hasn't been any successful Wikipedia copycat? I know Google attempted their variant called Knol(https://en.wikipedia.

• hutzlibu 6y ago
  Because a clone would have to be significantly better to convince the community and users to switch. There simply was none. And it is a huge amount of work to try and as far as I know, mainly those people try this in seriousnes (and some success), who are not happy with wikipedia because they don't like alternative facts. So I think I have seen alt-right and esoteric wikipedia clones somewhere, but for some reason they have not wide success.
• canofbars 6y ago
  Usually when you build a clone, you base it on fixing the problems of the original? What problems in wikipedia could a clone possibly fix since the main issues with wikipedia is getting people to agree on what should be included and I don't see how that could be solved.
  • kubanczyk 6y ago
    For example, a fork could make all articles into rabbit holes like: - really simple and short article - expanded version of the same article - even more expanded version - ... With an easy (contextual!) navigation up and down the stack. The benefit would be faster learning. The initial levels would be clearly marked that they contain simplifications to the point of being half-truths and the version that is 100% "honest" would be also clearly marked. (For the cases when the truth is so complex that it becomes clearly anti-educational. I don't mean controversial/political topics.)