Redish Lab on Nostr: npub19d9p0…kf02p npub1vvsev…jk2yk npub1jzgxd…ehc3a Wikipedia is very gatekept. ...
npub19d9p04u4xfysdy92fycw947jrca3xve2gnsauysshzewxvmz8dms6kf02p (npub19d9…f02p) npub1vvsevnk4d2lhjvhlu5t2tq76lraxtj7xjju2raz3qjryaesk6als0jk2yk (npub1vvs…k2yk) npub1jzgxd3ylxrpqcr90zss3ttyuk20cr6y9r7ewz2hyauvr4n0xzs8sqehc3a (npub1jzg…hc3a)
Wikipedia is very gatekept. It has very strict curation criterion. (If you've ever tried to edit something, such as add a new page or add text without appropriate citations.)
What I have found interesting is that the preprint space (the Rxivs) seems to be fine within-field, in large part because experts within the field do their own peer review in things like journal clubs. But that doesn't translate across fields well at all. And it certainly doesn't provide safe science for non-scientists (politicians, journalists, clinical practitioners) to judge what to trust and what not to.
Your list doesn't include a curation process.
Wikipedia is very gatekept. It has very strict curation criterion. (If you've ever tried to edit something, such as add a new page or add text without appropriate citations.)
What I have found interesting is that the preprint space (the Rxivs) seems to be fine within-field, in large part because experts within the field do their own peer review in things like journal clubs. But that doesn't translate across fields well at all. And it certainly doesn't provide safe science for non-scientists (politicians, journalists, clinical practitioners) to judge what to trust and what not to.
Your list doesn't include a curation process.