The 2025 boycott us movement is so significant it has a wikipedia article written about it

It is indeed open. All Wikipedia content is available under both CC BY-SA 4.0 and the GFDL and can therefore be used effectively however and wherever you like. Nearly all of its articles are freely editable by anyone anywhere provided they haven't previously been blocked or that the article isn't protected. Its entire history short of a few minor exceptions (pre-November 2001-ish, extreme vandalism/defamation, obvious copyright infringement, and deleted articles) is publicly available. Wikipedia by its nature is more open than most FOSS projects in the sense that few circumstances even exist where you'd need to ask a regular contributor to publish a change to the main branch on your behalf.

I don't understand why you use scare quotes around "open" here.

6 comments

Hey, Sunshine and anyone reading this! Feel free to ask here if you have any Wikipedia-specific questions. I'm somewhat credentialed and happy to answer.
- I know Wikipedia is “open,” free, and all that but I wish there was a competitor that did not have it’s office in the US.
  
  It is indeed open. All Wikipedia content is available under both CC BY-SA 4.0 and the GFDL and can therefore be used effectively however and wherever you like. Nearly all of its articles are freely editable by anyone anywhere provided they haven't previously been blocked or that the article isn't protected. Its entire history short of a few minor exceptions (pre-November 2001-ish, extreme vandalism/defamation, obvious copyright infringement, and deleted articles) is publicly available. Wikipedia by its nature is more open than most FOSS projects in the sense that few circumstances even exist where you'd need to ask a regular contributor to publish a change to the main branch on your behalf.
  I don't understand why you use scare quotes around "open" here.