[lmm]

Maybe we'd still be using something opt-in like Yahoo Directory, and maybe the web would be better for it. Yahoo directory was slower but in many ways higher-quality; it would've kept the web more decentralized (e.g. Wikipedia would not be the top result for half of queries). Of course there would have been short-term costs to that route.

[PostOnce]

"decentralized" doesn't magically mean better! I personally believe wikipedia is one of humanity's greatest accomplishments. It's been an enormous group effort.

I have a copy in my phone, unbelievable amounts of knowledge in my pocket, several libraries full. Would it somehow be better if information were harder to find?

[lmm]

I think downranking Wikipedia would make some information easier to find. Often a subject-matter-specific site has a better page than Wikipedia on a given topic - but Wikipedia has more google-juice, so people are directed there instead.

There is certainly value in presenting everything via a consistent interface, as Wikipedia does. But there's also value is subject-specific interfaces. And I find Wikipedia's notability criteria very problematic; Wikipedia can't be treated as a sole source of truth when it simply refuses to include any information about certain subjects. (E.g. I wanted to know about a band I'd seen once, so I looked them up on Wikipedia only to find no page; I wondered if I'd spelled them wrong or some such. Then I looked them up on TV Tropes and found a useful page about them.)