[summarite]

There are a lot of people trying lots of things. Eg a French startup is trying to do a kind of system for add it ng such micro contributions with blockchain to confirm who did the original contribution. It looks from my view a lot like a kind of specialised Twitter, but I'm not informed in depth of the system.

I think the main problem with any such system is that a paper has a certain weight. You can be sure that it has a minimum value. (and estimate its value from the journal it's published in). Number of contribuons does not give an equally good indicator - eg the most active users on Wikipedia are all bots doing minor edits.

In addition, there is no consensus building like on github for individual projects which each in turn can be judged on popularity/use/... . Having a similar system for a science corpus of knowledge would even more encourage status quo thinking than the current system.

Apart from that, having a self-contained paper has value as that's a package you can judge as relevant or not to your work. It's fairly easy to use as the author is basically doing the curation. Having all knowledge of a field in one single Wikipedia like entity could end up being overwhelming for anyone but (and maybe even) existing experts.