> I don't think there's any website that has successfully navigated that minefield as well as Wikipedia.

There's a survivorship bias in play here as we don't have a good other sample or more to compare to. After Wikipedia went big in the 2000s it was for a very long time a de-facto monopoly for people seeking out reference information on the Internet. Even Google's Knol project, which was intended to be a Wikipedia competitor, faltered after a few years. Same goes for Everipedia as well.

> There's a survivorship bias in play here as we don't have a good other sample or more to compare to.

It is not survivorship bias to point out that the survivor survived.

> Even Google's Knol project, which was intended to be a Wikipedia competitor, faltered after a few years.

Not “faltering after a few years” is part of “succesfully navigating that minefield”. If you fall out of the “race” no matter how good your policies would be otherwise you won’t be a reliable source of information. Because your can’t be if you no longer exists.

This is not a statement about what could have worked, this is a statement about what did work. And there survival is a necessary ingredient of success.

But there is a survivorship bias because doing what Wikipedia does is almost impossible.