Without any text it's really hard to guess what you want and that's why you get so many different answers.

Do you want to

• host a copy of wikipedia for yourself locally? Then download the database from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_download (thanks zygo_histo_morpheus) and the sofware from https://www.mediawiki.org and get going. Both are freely available
• host a site that works like wikipedia but doesn't contain its content, but your own? Just use MediaWiki.
• host a wiki, but not necessarily the one that powers wikipedia? Then pick one from https://github.com/awesome-selfhosted/awesome-selfhosted?tab=readme-ov-file#wikis

Note that I suspect you actually want the third one, in which case I suggest you avoid MediaWiki. Not because it's bad, but because it's almost certainly overkill for your use-case and there's way simpler, easier-to-setup-and-maintain systems with fewer moving parts out there.

The problem with your attitude is ...

No. That's your problem with my attitude.

"Free speech" absolutists don't convince me with their hypotheticals.

Believe it or not: absolute free speech is not the end goal and not as valuable as you all believe.

Forbidding some kind of speech can be okay.

Because not forbidding it creates an awful lot of very real and very current pain. Somehow the theoretical pain that a similar law could create is more important for your argument, than the real and avoidable pain thatthis law is attempting to prevent.

but e.g. American free speech would be nonexistent

And I say that the specific American flavor of free speech is not very valuable at all.

If the only thing I knew about a given law is that those three complained about it I would immediately and wholeheartedly support and endorse that law. It's probably awesome and badly needed.

In the immortal words of Jake the Dog:

Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.

We are or were all noobs once. Going away from the keyboard is often an undervalued step in the solution-finding process. Kudos!

Billionaires don't "work". At least not in the sense that they get some amount of money that's in any way in relation to the value they create. They shuffle around money to do things for them and sometimes that makes them more money. Calling that "work" lessens the meaning of that word and gives them too much credit.

But that's exactly what every other Employee and country is doing.

And he's not capable of handling the fact that someone might be standing up to him.

And I don't even mean that in a "doesn't have a business plan to handle that situation" sense either. I think that he's personally not emotionally stable enough to fully grasp what's happening.

Good. 10 Billion $ of inheritance tax seems reasonable. Could be higher (we don't need billionaires), but it's a good start.

I vaguely remember a perk in some expansion book of some Shadowrun edition that was basically "common sense" and ruleswise it meant that once per game session the GM should ask you "are you sure about that" when you're about to do something stupid. That's it. If you go ahead, you go ahead. If you don't realize that they are triggering the perk, you go ahead. If you never do anything stupid (yeah, right), they will never ask.

I tend to give that to my players "for free", but I still love that it's been encoded as a perk that's worth some points at character generation.

He might actually believe that himself.

And I'd like to see him in jail as much as the next one, but is this really news? "Colossal narcissist brags about his achievements".

Besonders interessant find' ich ja

Die Onlinepetition „Nein zur Elterngeld-Streichung“ [...], wurde in wenigen Tagen von fast 600.000 Leuten unterschrieben – das Zehnfache der Anzahl der betroffenen Familien.

D.h. eine halbe Million Leute die davon überhaupt nicht betroffen wären haben sich gedacht "oh nein, die Armen Wohlhabenden" oder wahrscheinlicher "wenn ich nur ein bisschen mehr hätte könnte das ja auch mich betreffen"!

"temporarily embarrassed millionaire" und all das.

Screen prints (printed?)
Suddenly the Dungeon collapses!! - You die.. when the master process died unexpectedly.

I promise this isn't a generic anti-crypto rant, but rather a specific anti-crypto rant:

There are many projects in this space that try to replace what they perceive as flawed legal systems with perceived "perfect" (or at least better) digital, automated systems.

And I definitely understand that urge: there are many problems with various legal systems ranging from annoying (like being slow and very disparate around the world) to massive (biases, lack of access for those who need it most).

So aiming to improve that situation is understandable. And being pessimistic about the chances of fixing those systems with the "normal approaches" (i.e. politics) is equally understandable.

Where these projects usually break down though is that they generally lack an understanding of what makes legal systems so hard to get right: no one has found a reliable way to encode a non-trivial part of the law into something that a computer can decide reliably and without wrong decisions. (there are of course other difficulties, but this is the most lenient one for the current topic).

People with a technical background (which includes me) are often frustrated how laws and legal documents like licenses are at the same time both written in an arcane inaccessible language and also very much prone to interpretation. We assume, based on the languages we interact with, that a sufficiently complex language should allow a strict, formal interpretation of some truth value ("was this contract followed by both parties?").

But the reality is that contracts (just like most laws) are intentionally written with some subjective language to both account for real world deviations and avoid loopholes.

It's incredibly easy for a law to apply when it's not meant to (or the opposite: to present a law as not being meant to apply to a certain situation when the authors were very aware of the implications) or to not apply due to some technicality.

And for all the wrong in legal systems that exists we have not yet found abetter way to solve this than (hopefully neutral) arbitrators that interpret the text and underlying intentions.

And all the crypto schemes categorically decline that: their stated goal is to not have a human in the loop anywhere. That would be fine if they also solved the above problems in some other way, but none that I know of even attempt to do that. They simply pretend that perfect, decideable contracts are possible (even easy!) and never unfair.

Whether that error is based on ignorance or on something more sinister is up to the reader to decide.