Sorry but I disagree with the biased perspectives of PRofessor David Eppstein. He absolutely doesn't know what is actually happening on Wikipedia with certain clowns taking monopoly over the edits. I've seen good papers not being cited because they were never published! What does published mean? They are not getting into detail ... but place biased burden on the reader.
The bitcoin paper by Satoshi Nakamoto was NEVER PUBLISHED! IT would not have been citable as source on wikipedia as a result of clowns editing the sources.
Other good papers on ArXiv or even cited papers never published on specific venues other than crypto ArXiv are held back by very biased crank editors on wikipdia.
One of them is a clown called ... MrOllie
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie
Who has been doing his fair share of introducing paid bias by certain third parties. I wonder if this is not one of the puppet accounts of David Eppstein.
Wikipedia as it has converged is nothing close to what the David Eppstein has outlined in the article he advertised. Sorry. Far cry.
Other good papers on ArXiv or even cited papers never published on specific venues other than crypto ArXiv are held back by very biased crank editors on wikipdia. One of them is a clown called ... MrOllie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MrOllie
Who has been doing his fair share of introducing paid bias by certain third parties. I wonder if this is not one of the puppet accounts of David Eppstein.
Wikipedia as it has converged is nothing close to what the David Eppstein has outlined in the article he advertised. Sorry. Far cry.