like all wikis, it is not a reliable source, this doesn't mean it isn't useful

I have tried before whether I could do it, the answer was no, and I don't feel I am missing out on anything.

Of course you can use XML that way, but it is unnecessarily verbose and complex because you have to make decisions, like, whether to store things as attributes or as nested elements.

I stand by my statement that if you're saving things to a file you should probably use XML, if you're transferring data over a network you should probably use JSON.

... not anymore? 😁

I am saying that if there are so many people wanting to write (and influence public opinion) about a topic that you have to go into endless arguments what the article should say, then there is no reason why it has to be "quick" that the article gets published with whatever new ideas anyone has had.

As it is now, Wikipedia is what we have and I am not saying you shouldn't read it.

Not really. Your description fits Interlingua a lot better than Esperanto.

For example the word for "legalize" looks like legaliz- in lots of European languages, but in Esperanto it's "laŭleĝigi" (laŭ = according to, leĝ = law, ig = cause to be, i = verb infinitive). There are many more examples like that, even the Internet is called Interreto in Esperanto.

??? Must be something specific to your instance. I am seeing no effects of word filters.

Facebook is only really useful for really small niche communities where most posts don't get more than a handful of comments.

I hadn't before reading this comment either, which prompted me to look for it on YouTube.

Of course, Adolf Hitler couldn't actually speak English, and the English generated by that doesn't sound very much like a native speaker of Austrian German would normally speak English. I am a native speaker of Austrian German and if I sing "I'm Still Standing" it doesn't sound like that at all.

The funny thing about this comment is that it tells me nothing about whether you are sympathetic to Israel or to the Palestinians, they might both write exactly this and think they've completely destroyed me.

I looked into your comment history and see you're pro-Palestinian, but I would not have been able to guess this just from this comment.

I admit I have only skimmed this yet, but that was 12 years ago. Back then, copyright was a major problem for a free and open society in which people could freely communicate.

The world has changed since then. Those opposed to such a society are now more likely to talk about disinformation, radicalization, child porn, hate speech rather than copyright. Those pretexts aren't really any better of course.