3 ms·
I still think Wikipedia's focus on significance was a historic mistake. At the very least there should have been an "extended" Wikipedia+ that strived to includ
by ginko 3y ago
I still think Wikipedia's focus on significance was a historic mistake. At the very least there should have been an "extended" Wikipedia+ that strived to include all human knowledge no matter how trivial.
Not having this meant for-profit companies like Wikia (now fandom.com) could take over much of that space, pervasive tracking and ads included.
- chriskanan 3y agoI 100% agree. They also apply rules inconsistently, where the handful of times I've tried to make an article on well-known scientists (h-index 70+) years ago, the editors rejected it despite some secondary sources. On the other hand there are many articles being created by some editor on scientists who have almost no track record. Wikipedia is already one of the best data sources for training LLMs, and if they were less stringent, it could even be a better resource.