Structure, contributors, information, editing, tagging, Wikimedia expertise, good intentions, cheer, and community.
Have at it.
I've take a stab an an initial organisation. Don't consider it set in stone. It's somewhere between pea gravel and dense fog.
Signs of trouble will be not being able to figure out where things should go, arguments that they should go to two or more different places, or any sort of deeply-nested structure. I think the overall dimensions should be modestly-sized at the top, and not excessively deep.
I've just filled out the last of my initially planed front-page articles. There's no more red on the homepage. Progress!
I have some thoughts but if others can take a stab at it first, I'd be happy.
The usual: data, hardware, financial, copyright, abuse, harassment, malware, vandalism, burnout, propaganda, disinformation / misinformation, technical debt, fascism / demogoguery, groupthink, surveillance, data harvesting, admin betrayal, admin sellout, etc., etc. Self-hosting risks should also be considered.
Getting input and contributions from disempowered, at-risk, minority, disenfranchised, and underrepresented communities and individuals is something I'd really like to see.
OK, first cut, still needs a lot of help: Risks and Threat Models
We're not Wikipedia, but if it's possible to back up statements, claims, and recommendations with a citation, please do. Especially for statements about platform and site characteristics, properties, risks, or concerns. I am concerned about both overzealous promotion and denigration of platforms.
I'm not happy with my initial structure here, but I don't think the end form will become apparent until we free-form fill this out. There's a major refactoring ahead of us here. That's my feel.
We need some first-hand reports from options, from fair-minded, but critical reviewers. I have a backlog of some case studies, including dead sites (notably Imzy) at Dreddit, which can be linked or repurposed.
The Do-it-yourself Exodus
(Play on Sing-it-yourself Messiah...)
Feedback that the hazards of Facebook, Twitter, and generally surveillance capitalism, should be incorporated or mentioned. Probably, but briefly. That's more appropriate for the risks section IMO, at least for a long treatment.
There's also the question of whether or not people should consider continuing a social media presence, with may be appropriate here.
I have more plans in mind here. Expanding the self-hosting / community-hosting bit.
Possibly exploration of external funding sources. I don't know if the Knight Foundation would back something like this, but that's a possibility. Allying with other organisation with some funding basis but needing comms / interactivity, might possibly also work.
Very grateful to see people jumping in. I'd like to see the base expanded and diversified if at all possible, and have absolutely no idea how to go about that.
Be excellent to each other.