would probably be a hellscape, filled with opposing "facts", conspiracy theories and vandalism.. imo wikipedia is still better as it atleast tries to be factual and neutral (ofc it isn't perfect, but do you really want anti vaxers to show you what they think is a credible source right next to an actual credible source? why don't we let the baseless conspiracy theories stay on facebook)
The beauty in the fork/pr model would be that people who claim that they would be better stewards of a given topic could simply try to convince by example (in their fork), even in the hottest edit war. The current wikipedia model, as far as I understand it (which isn't far at all I admit), is that if a battle gets too hot it ends with a competition in pulling rank: escalating lockdown until only one group remains (a group that may or may not be considered neutral by others - certainly considers itself neutral, but who doesn't...). Fork/pr could never have a problem editors that are respected/neutral in one field but turn out to be zealous in some other niche.
This isn't the Wikipedia I know, and hasn't been since long before the pandemic. If you want credibility, go to a real encyclopaedia like Britannica. Otherwise, let people fork and edit and use stars to signal their opinion instead of letting cliques control information based on their far too obvious biases.
