Even the large media organizations are contorting their output for attention on social media; what chances do the independent professionals have to bring attention to their work while ignoring those platforms?

I can understand why large media organizations are but why do independent professional want to attract the joe six pack of the world opinion which makes up the bulk of facebook traffic?

They don't. Historians follow other historians on twitter and facebook. It is professional networking. Joe Six Pack doesn't care about the stuff my wife is posting on twitter, but the editor at some press who would be reviewing her book might.

Hopefully this drives uptake of those better ways. And if better ways don’t exist, this is a call for improvements (integrating with Wikipedia, the Internet Archive, SciHub, mailing lists/rss, etc).

Honestly I'm getting tired of this sort of moderation on social networks. It has nothing to do with scholarly channels, or Nazi this and that for me; I just don't sympathize with censorship I guess and there's always going to be some false positives and negatives when you start going down that path. It just feels like a waste of everyone's time to me.

Having said that, I think you're right about hoping it leads to better avenues, as I think there's a real need for it.

Yeah, because networks without moderation have gone over pretty well. Srsly, FB is not the solution for everything.

I was motivated to think of these use cases of sharing research when I found out a project to scan, transcribe and translate thousands of hand written journals was done by sending memory cards back and forth. I thought maybe Fossil scm would be a good option with file blob and wiki support, but the learning curve isn’t there, people take the path of least resistance.

I think a lot of research groups are still in list-servs, and I haven’t seen any social networks catering to advancing cross disciplinary research. Maybe something could be built on top of LibGen ?

He found a new unpublished order from Goebbels, and thought he'd share it with other historians.

That seems pretty reasonable.

Such as?

There are many better ways of doing research.

The obvious speculation is that this person did not use any of those better ways because the document is a forgery. If it is a forgery, the author would be promoting neo-Nazi propaganda.

Just to be clear, you're accusing a researcher of being a neo-nazi, forgery, and spreading nazi propaganda.. because they chose to make a historical document widely accessible?

I'm saying that if the researcher is incapable of using any of the reputable ways of publishing research, we have to consider it possible there is a reason for that.

Why do you think the historical document is legitimate, other than this LiveJournal post?