Return to Answer

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience. (And I don't mean with AI in case someone thinks about that.)

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A (giving credit and attribution) and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles, so both formats can profit from each other.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have here. Think about separating multiple answers into smaller bits, remove redundant bits and then re-arranging these and connect them to a single comprehensive text. Consider not displaying a single name below an article because there would probably be multiple authors.

The charm of this: it's a natural extension of Q&A and plays to the strengths of the knowledge base. The backside: it faces stiff competition from AI and maybe people simply do not approve of it. But the goal would only be to have a high concentration of useful knowledge (pearls) that cover more than a single Q&A topic, but still more focused than an average Wikipedia article.

For example, covering a range of git operations in a single article comes to mind. There is a couple of highly scored git Q&A, but the knowledge about git on SO feels not well connected.

Additionally, I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices guides, which can be even opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A, not only for attribution but also for context. This is what others maybe cannot do that easily.

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience. (And I don't mean with AI in case someone thinks about that.)

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A (giving credit and attribution) and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles, so both formats can profit from each other.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have here. Think about separating multiple answers into smaller bits, remove redundant bits and then re-arranging these and connect them into a single comprehensive text. Consider not displaying a single name below an article but a list because there would probably be multiple authors.

The charm of this: it's a natural extension of Q&A and plays to the strengths of the knowledge base. The backside: it faces stiff competition from AI and maybe people simply do not approve of it. But the goal would only be to have a high concentration of useful knowledge (pearls) that cover more than a single Q&A topic, but still more focused than an average Wikipedia article.

For example, covering a range of git operations in a single article comes to mind. There is a couple of highly scored git Q&A, but the knowledge about git on SO feels not well connected.

Additionally, I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices guides, which can be even opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A, not only for attribution but also for context. This is what others maybe cannot do that easily.

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience. (And I don't mean with AI in case someone thinks about that.)

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A (giving credit and attribution) and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles, so both formats can profit from each other.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have here. Think about separating multiple answers into smaller bits, remove redundant bits and then re-arranging these and connect them to a single comprehensive text. Consider not displaying a single name below an article because there would probably be multiple authors.

The charm of this: it's a natural extension of Q&A and plays to the strengths of the knowledge base. The backside: it faces stiff competition from AI and maybe people simply do not approve of it. But the goal would only be to have a high concentration of useful knowledge (pearls) that cover more than a single Q&A topic, but still more focused than an average Wikipedia article.

Additionally, I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices guides, which can be even opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A, not only for attribution but also for context. This is what others maybe cannot do that easily.

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience. (And I don't mean with AI in case someone thinks about that.)

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A (giving credit and attribution) and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles, so both formats can profit from each other.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have here. Think about separating multiple answers into smaller bits, remove redundant bits and then re-arranging these and connect them to a single comprehensive text. Consider not displaying a single name below an article because there would probably be multiple authors.

The charm of this: it's a natural extension of Q&A and plays to the strengths of the knowledge base. The backside: it faces stiff competition from AI and maybe people simply do not approve of it. But the goal would only be to have a high concentration of useful knowledge (pearls) that cover more than a single Q&A topic, but still more focused than an average Wikipedia article.

For example, covering a range of git operations in a single article comes to mind. There is a couple of highly scored git Q&A, but the knowledge about git on SO feels not well connected.

Additionally, I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices guides, which can be even opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A, not only for attribution but also for context. This is what others maybe cannot do that easily.

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience.

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have. Consider not displaying a single name below an article.

I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices, which even can be opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A. This is what maybe others cannot do that easily.

One possible way to provide content for this could be to take a couple of related Q&A and merge them together mixing question texts and texts from all relevant answers to give a more coherent experience. (And I don't mean with AI in case someone thinks about that.)

People may find it easier to learn from that. By removing clutter it might present knowledge more efficiently. It might give a better sense of overview and connectedness of the content, increasing the value of the existing content.

One would then link to the chosen Q&A (giving credit and attribution) and maybe also backlink from the Q&A to these articles, so both formats can profit from each other.

It might require different skills to effectively summarize content instead of producing a particular bit. Maybe more like a Wikipedia like mindset, which we don't really have here. Think about separating multiple answers into smaller bits, remove redundant bits and then re-arranging these and connect them to a single comprehensive text. Consider not displaying a single name below an article because there would probably be multiple authors.

The charm of this: it's a natural extension of Q&A and plays to the strengths of the knowledge base. The backside: it faces stiff competition from AI and maybe people simply do not approve of it. But the goal would only be to have a high concentration of useful knowledge (pearls) that cover more than a single Q&A topic, but still more focused than an average Wikipedia article.

Additionally, I could also imagine a place for extended workflows/recipes/best practices guides, which can be even opinionated. Emphasis should nevertheless be on lots of links to existing Q&A, not only for attribution but also for context. This is what others maybe cannot do that easily.