http://www.scholarpedia.org/ has nice articles written by experts in the field. Usually pretty good and thorough reviews.
[0]: https://www.quora.com/Do-I-have-to-use-my-real-name-on-Quora...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Researching_with_Wik...
The article on wait() et al., for example, is significantly wrong, some of which is called out on its talk page.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wait_(system_call)
There are similar errors in its article on MAC times.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MAC_times
Its article on pax, a standard Unix utility for a fairly long while, is very misleading too.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pax_(Unix)
Its article on CubeHash in 2013 did not include information from 2009.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:CubeHash#This_article_is_....
I've pointed out errors in its article on systemd, one of which was called out by one of the systemd authors.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=723240462&oldid=72...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631112520&oldid=63...
The irony of this edit to the NFS article is that in fact the problems and limitation of NFS with respect to full Unix filesystem semantics were called out by its authors when they first wrote about it, and are the widespread view.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Network_File_Syst...
Wikipedia people actually tried to delete articles on "Is" functions, C++ placement syntax, and the Process Environment Block.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Is_functions&diff...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Process_Environme...
They in contrast kept an article about a purported computer science concept that was invented within Wikipedia based upon a vague phrase in a book that did not in fact describe the Wikipedia concept.
* http://jdebp.eu./FGA/legacy-encoding-has-no-definition.html
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...
If anyone else has an interest in the semantic web or ontologies [2] in general, you might have a look at the Indiana Philosophy Ontology project [3]. It works to use data from SEP and other sources to build a ontology of the field.
[1] https://plato.stanford.edu/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_(information_science)
Is it possible we might put too much trust into this one source? I know it is amazing. I know we love it. But something like this could help.
This is what we're talking about for those not familiar: https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8350.html
No, first and foremost the Encyclopedia must establish procedures to ensure high-quality, accurate, and concise content. Being "fair and inclusive" is a secondary concern. If it has no users, no one cares whether it is "fair and inclusive".
It blows my mind that something which purports to be so important couldn't find a way to sustain itself without commercial advertising. This isn't about improving the status quo of CS education; it's about lining the pockets of a handful while reaping the rewards of volunteer experts.
The author spends a lot of words envisioning the encyclopedia, but says nothing about what gap needs to be filled.
> Over time, the Encyclopedia should be organized using ontological services supporting programmatic interfaces for a knowledge graph.
And this phrase shows how quickly this encyclopedia will become a memorial to itself rather than a source of up-to-date knowledge.
Sounds a lot like the current peer-reviewing system and journal editors mafia. A bunch of old men with their hand on the system and doing the maximum so it does not change, for their own interest of keeping their position and dominance of the system.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia...
Something like a Wikipedia of man pages, programming language documentation (and official tutorials), answered/archived Stack Overflow questions, etc. A central (but maybe decentralised) collection of manuals and reference sheets and all the rest.
So often you go to find something and the site has expired because they gave up on the project (but it's still being used), or the forum posts have been deleted, or it's impossible to find because Google has decided you actually wanted to find <insert something unrelated> and they know better than you do.
An Archive.org for tech info, with machine readable formatting so we can have a comprehensive search function.
Then throw in a Wikipedia-style packaged archive you can download for Internet-free local searching and working while traveling or whatever.
disrupted Wikipedia for more than two years by using it for self-promotion, tampering with his own biography and manipulating computer science articles to inflate the importance of his own research.
How would be assured that the members of the "editorial board" of the encyclopedia wouldn't use it for their own benefit inflating the importance of their research, like allegedly Carl did?
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2007/dec/09/wikipedia...
