Responsive design is the design ideal of not having two separate sites -- one for mobile and the other for desktop -- but rather just being able to visit one site and have its CSS dynamically adjust so that it looks good in all screen sizes.
If you can do it without adding a bloated JavaScript framework and adding tons of requests to a page load, sure. If you can't do that I'd prefer auto detection by the load balancer and redirects to the mobile site
Jesus, you don't need frameworks or sniffing, it's an almost all-text site with very minimal styling. It's almost more difficult to make it non-responsive. There isn't anything really on the desktop version that isn't on the mobile, so I'm not sure where those extra requests would be coming from.
Sorry for the the tetchy reply, I just find it nuts that, to get around writing maybe a page of CSS, people build and maintain an entirely separate site that has to be in lockstep to the the first, along with ever-reliable sniffing, and then say that is the simpler way to do it. There are several scenarios where it turns.out to be useful; this isn't one of them
You can do a fair amount these days with CSS thanks to flex-box, it handles the row based layout transition to column based quite well.
A benefit of using CSS is that it handles browser zoom and high dpi screens much better as you can use units other than pixels (eg: em/rem, vh/vw, %).
From a architecture point of view, you want to keep layout logic out of the JavaScript anyways as JS should be for interactions and other 'nice to have' behaviors.
The responsive bit doesn't really work though. The mobile version does, but there doesn't seem to be any good reason for that being extra functionality, rather than it just being how the site should reflow at smaller sizes
Haha that's an ironic URL. Clearly I was wrong about Wikipedia's use of media queries, but that makes the persistence of the ".m." subdomain even stranger. It's time to start 301'ing this.
edit: oh dear, responsive web design.