1. https://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Distributed_Wik...
And this should include resistance against deletionism.
To me, the idea of an open wiki died as soon as a group of people started bullying other contributors and telling that the thing they wrote about shouldn't be written about.
My problem with Wikipedia is the campers, who prevent improvements and even corrections to certain articles because they have a specific view of "the truth". Any changes to their corner of Wikipedia is frowned upon, taken as an offensive and hostile implication that they were unable to maintain their space correctly, and, if not reverted, at least made as difficult as possible.
Having come into conflict with them, I closed my own account and try to limit my current dealings to mere typo/formatting changes. Nothing substantial. Although from time to time I permit myself to do so - and then go away.
I wouldn't have a problem with it. I think we should build tools that empower people to involve themselves in the things they care about (and filter out the things they don't care about) instead of having moderators/deletionists/nanny state decide what's good for you.
I agree about the "truth problem."
For example, what would happen to a distributed wikipedia in relation to say maps and borders or other controversial subjects like trump, scientology or vaccinations?
Maybe these are the same questions people had when wikipedia first started in relation to traditional encyclopedias, and we already have the answers?