Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize...
by cxr on Monday June 07, 2021 @09:19AM
(#27422214)
> I would sometimes just type in my notes from some university classes
The time is ripe for something like Knol to be re-introduced.
Even before Knol, we had something like this, and they were called personal websites. People would use them to document their passions (or anything, really) and you could find them on Google. People are probably so addicted to centralization and services, though, and Google's approach to ranking so overwhelmingly works against that style now, that it's probably unworkable to argue for relying on that again.
Re:Science Is Shaped by Wikipedia: Evidence from a Randomize...
by antibuddy on Monday June 07, 2021 @05:24AM
(#27420590)
> For something to be accepted now it needs to be like something written by a professional writer [...]
Actually it is mostly selected by person rather than content or style. Mostly evidenced by the fact that accepted edits are mostly done by the same people. This is at least true for the German Wikipedia, but I have no doubt that the English one isn't any different.
These days even much higher quality content will be deleted. For something to be accepted now it needs to be like something written by a professional writer and follow all kinds of guidelines for style, citations and much more immediately. Nobody fixes issues anymore, if there's any issues or something is not very well written it will be deleted immediately.