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.

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.

With all the deserving credits to the late and great Terry Pratchett.

Get out of here with your silly US-centric idea of "absolute free speech". Pretty much every civilized country in the world has boundaries to what is considered acceptable.

And even the US does (though they are fewer than elsewhere, granted).

But for some reason the US has produced this myth that absolute freedom of speech (which it doesn't have) somehow is the best possible choice (which it isn't).

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".

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