[crotchfire]

The real wikipedia renders (perfectly!) without javascript.

This does not render at all without javascript.

Not an alternative.

[SPBS]

It doesn't even run on mobile because the sidebar takes up all the space and the main content is squeezed to the side. Even more disappointing to learn that what is essentially a static webpage doesn't render without JavaScript. This is not going anywhere with that kind of attitude (not testing on mobile, relying 100% on JavaScript).

[amrangaye]

I thought it was just me - I even tried different mobile browsers. You’d think before you wrote a whole article about how bad Wikipedia is you’d at least make your site work on mobile. (And I have js turned on - the site is just one long column of unreadable text)

[account42]

This seems to be a common problem with the fediverse ecosystem.

[rajamaka]

Not an alternative for you maybe, but a fine alternative for over 99% of the rest of the world running javascript in their browser.

[Chabsff]

Wikipedia is one of the few initiatives where not being satisfied with 99% accessibility is absolutely warranted. If your goal is to dethrone it, you have to bite that bullet.

[DonsDiscountGas]

It also renders like garbage on mobile, which makes it useless for about 50% of the world. Not a great start.

[justaj]

99% of the users you're talking about won't see any benefit in switching to this alternative from Wikipedia anyway, so what's your point?

[michaelcampbell]

His point that the javascript-turner-offers are a vocal, but very small minority.

The mobile issue here is big, and the fact that this effort is just another attempt following a long string of previous failures and has a small chance of success, but that's something different.