Educational researcher here. There's no such thing as a "science of reading." It's part of the highly politicized "reading wars" (see also the "math wars" which has been going on for decades). It's no coincidence that Republicans are pushing phonics as the end all be all solution to teaching reading, and you can cherry pick educational research studies that support or disconfirm various teaching strategies. Phonics has its place, contexts where it is appropriate and beneficial, but it is not the sole strategy that works or should be used in every context.
The good news is there are a lot of strategies that help with reading in various contexts. There's even research on how reading to dogs (or even robots) helps students with reading :)
I notice that the study you cite is measuring effectiveness in reading interventions. Obviously, that's where the data is coming from because we don't carefully track readers who learn successfully at a much earlier age.
However, I wonder if the ideal pedagogy would be different for younger students (maybe pre-K to 1st) who have less knowledge and smaller vocabularies? It's a bit tricky because a lot of the students who need intervention probably need remedial instruction in other areas too, but some of them may have been good students who struggled with reading.
Wikipedia is unfortunately biased in many areas that have any kind of controversy/disagreement. Education is one other topic where Wikipedia has a lot of bias. Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" idea is not only false but unobtainable.
Persistence wins over logic or evidence.
Not sure how this would work, but I think it would be worth researching/testing:
* Essentially have regional or clustered versions of events/history
For example, Afghanistan will have a different perspective on the US invasion than the US, but I think there’s value in seeing what the other thinks. (Does *not* necessarily imply one is more correct than the other)
Then have some sort of ranking system where (not sure how this would happen) votes can be had on which perspective is more correct. This hopefully would weed out the intense/false perspectives, but still gives people the ability to see the different ones.
A core problem we have is what constitutes misinformation/disinformation/propaganda/truth
I think the incorrect approach we’ve tried to take is either having a vetting committee/website that evaluates what is true, or just outright censorship. This fuels the actual conspiracy theories because they can use this as grounds for their cause (since, at times these vetting bodies are verifiably wrong)
We cannot withhold information, it travels too quickly and is easy to circumvent without total authoritarian control.
And all it takes is a few “valid” cases for the authoritarian seeds to be sown in the soil of good intentions
But we can generate unending oceans of bullshit. If you can't stop the truth, then make up unnumbered truths that wear down the most avid learners. Democracies vote in tyrants all the time, votes are easily bought in any number of ways.
You could do a similar 4GB RAM server setup for around $7/month using the Yunohost server app manager (free) + a VPS server host like Hetzner (or see lowendbox for others).
Logseq is free and open source https://logseq.com/
You have to sync yourself though (for now).
You can also publish to github pages.
My only issues are: they are focusing more on the desktop and (now) mobile apps, instead of the web app.
You can't quickly share items to the app or web version to quickly save links, etc.
They did have github integration built into the web version but are abandoning that to work on their own paid sync solution that isn't out yet. But you can manually sync the files as I mentioned.
For now I'm mainly sticking with a wiki but keeping an eye on developments to logseq and similar open source apps like Athens Research, Bangle, etc. See this twitter list of different knowledge management tools: https://twitter.com/i/lists/1396562498002825240
