## 7 Conclusions and Future Work  
**We have presented** content neutrality and EPOV as an alternative governance of Wiki systems and WP and have discussed conceptual and architectural consequences.  
**At present**, there is a preliminary implementation as a Mediawiki plug-in prototype, the discussion based on which the current concept is shaped. There is a partial analysis of the Wikipedia API as to which extent it can be mapped to the requirements of a Wiki hub. In order to adapt topic space, two approaches have been studied: An extension of the name space system as well as the topic splitting approach described above. A cursory review of other Wiki systems indicated that most Wiki engines could be adapted to a Wiki hub protocol. For studying all aspects of content neutrality, we are working on a system, which can be described as a Wiki / Blog merge. It shall form the basis for a non-legacy multivariant Wiki, as well as for a Wiki hub.  
**We still need** a formal description of the Wiki hub and mounting protocols. A security analysis must outline threats against hubs, multi-variant and distributed architectures. Rating, ranking and clustering algorithms must be adapted and deployed and an import strategy for current Wikipedia must be developed. The current state of the concept as well as the implementation is still far from providing a usable system and many application scenarios and user issues are far from being completely understood.  
**As benefits of our approach** we regard: _Conflict elimination_, more especially: Reduction of edit wars, since every POV can have its own variant, and end of the inclusionist-deletionist debates, since both camps can co-exist under the same umbrella infrastructure. _Quality improvement_, since the constraint of finding the compromise of a single article per language is replaced by the flexibility of a co-existing multitude of possibly contradictory views. This flexibility will also serve the needs of the knowledge worker in case of personal or group-based Wikis. _Removal of the monopoly_ of the Mediawiki foundation and of Wikipedia. Free knowledge, software and content call not only for the theoretical possibility of alternatives but also need the _de facto_ availability of a choice. Our suggestion makes it more feasible to reach such alternatives. _Reader's choice_, since every end user can operate his own Wiki hub and thus can choose to mount those Wikis, whose content, approach and governance he finds acceptable. At the same time _backward compatibility_ with Wikipedia is maintained. This allows Wiki-type knowledge bases to exploit the benefits of [PERSON]'s long tail philosophy [45], offering niches and mainstream approaches side-by-side. _Scalability:_ It is easier to operate a Wiki hub than a complete fork or clone.  
**As current drawbacks** we consider the following: The _Software basis_ is currently only at the stage of early prototypes. While we continue the core portion of the development, adapters to the numerous alternative Wiki-engines are needed as well. Open source models might help in solving this issue. There is _insufficient experience_ on the quality, performance demands and end user impact of the various forms of ranking and recommendation algorithms. There is also no corpus of usage data to serve as training set, leading to a chicken-and-egg situation. _User space issues:_ The distinction between unauthorized and authorized edits requires a common user id space. Edits without log-in and sock puppet related issues likely will pose more problems than in WP. _Attracted participants:_ We expect EPOV governance to attract participants who were banned at WP for other than NPOV reasons. Vandalism and defacing might demand more work at an EPOV installation than at a more strictly governed WP.