Im not sure you can easily argue either is "highly curated"; they both cover an extremely large domain and cover at least a substantial subset of it. It's hardly the case that any one/group handpicked particular subjects of interest, rather they denied anything not of interest (and accepted the rest)
I imagine rather than "broad and inclusive", it should be "broad and authoritative", which then tends towards conservative when contraversial (which makes sense: how can you be authoritative when a general agreement can't be reached?)
And ofc, wikipedia was preceded by c2wiki, and stackoverflow by innumerable Q&A sites, both predecessors being substantially more liberal in what they accepted. And both beat out their predecessors, presumably largely because quality control was made much more difficult, and often absent, in the face of liberal acceptance.
> And both beat out their predecessors, presumably largely because quality control was made much more difficult, and often absent, in the face of liberal acceptance.
That doesn't mesh with my experience of what made the sites popular at the time of their growth. Wikipedia was the only wiki that anyone had ever heard of, and SO was the only software focused Q&A site besides expertsexchange which had a freemium model that made it unusable (not to mention a funny domain name!).
I imagine rather than "broad and inclusive", it should be "broad and authoritative", which then tends towards conservative when contraversial (which makes sense: how can you be authoritative when a general agreement can't be reached?)
And ofc, wikipedia was preceded by c2wiki, and stackoverflow by innumerable Q&A sites, both predecessors being substantially more liberal in what they accepted. And both beat out their predecessors, presumably largely because quality control was made much more difficult, and often absent, in the face of liberal acceptance.