> And it’s de Jong’s exacting standards that also set the Stacks Project apart from other crowdsourced publications on the web. “Johan gets very mad when I call it Stackopedia,” said Kedlaya. “He reads every line that goes in.”
> The one-editor model allows the Stacks Project to maintain one voice and a high level of quality control. But unlike the peer-reviewed literature that it attempts to corral into one place, the Stacks Project is designed to evolve. Long after de Jong is gone, this accumulation of knowledge will continue to grow.
Is there any path to this scaling beyond one contributor? It sounds like after de Jong stops contributing it will just become frozen.
OEIS is perhaps the best model. I'm not sure if Neil Sloane looks at every sequence that goes in but he approved my entries. It's now in a trust and will definitely continue once he stops contributing.
Are there any specific lessons you think would apply to a collaborative encyclopedias of scientific topics? It seems to me that OEIS can only scale because it enjoys some of the same advantages as Wikipedia: the individual articles are highly compartmentalized (non-leaky abstractions), and there is very little need for adjudication of technical disputes. These would not apply to Stack Project or other comprehensive technical encyclopedias.
> The one-editor model allows the Stacks Project to maintain one voice and a high level of quality control. But unlike the peer-reviewed literature that it attempts to corral into one place, the Stacks Project is designed to evolve. Long after de Jong is gone, this accumulation of knowledge will continue to grow.
Is there any path to this scaling beyond one contributor? It sounds like after de Jong stops contributing it will just become frozen.