Something that cannot be overstated enough - but is going to be severely underrated - is the community. Wikipedia has countless pages on codes of conduct and it

Something that cannot be overstated enough - but is going to be severely underrated - is the community. Wikipedia has countless pages on codes of conduct and its own internal rule system that are actually coming from the editors, from experience, rather than handed down by a lawyer. Wikipedia generally understands and accepts the messier sides of democratic editing: people get emotional, trolls, biases, arguments, etc. and it approaches it all with honesty, straightforwardness, and even humor. You can list all the philosophical, technical, or economic reasons you want (and surely those are important to consider) but in my mind the community of real, living humans with (yes) opinions but that have recourse and clarity to correct those is invaluable. I have never seen a community with such professionalism and due diligence (almost every single troll edit I have seen is immediately reverted) as Wikipedia editors. There is also something to be said about the “culture” where trolling is not rewarded. By and large, vandalizing Wikipedia is not “cool,” people don’t rejoice for it because I think everyone feels at least a little bit of attachment or debt to Wikipedia. It’s helped us all learn more than we probably ever could before and been there through schoolwork, essays, reference reading, and general curiosity. It’s such a special corner of the Internet and I think “replicating aspects of it” won’t work, at least not the way you want. Wikipedia is a holistic being, it’s a community of people, yet also a resource, and even a culture, so any similar project needs to do the genuinely hard, slow, and boring work (something Wikipedia embraces - that most of the process is routine grammatical fixes, meta cleanup, rewriting, etc. over genuinely adding increasingly more information) of cultivating those higher standards and community outreach.