[PeterisP]

It's worth looking at what you wrote once more from the parent poster suggested perspective "that actual stakeholders would be interested in investing into".

You're giving an example about an improved CMS. If I imagine myself in the shoes of any actual stakeholder who's got a bunch of employees using (or is paying for the development of) a nontrivial CMS system, I don't really see why they would consider your proposed features as needed and valuable. They don't have a problem with referencing the correct Venice, they can say what they want to say as accurately they want with the current CMS systems. If they're writing an article, then either the weather forecast and flight connections would be relevant to the intended message and included by the writer/editor, or otherwise they should be avoided in order not to distract readers from what the publisher wants. Similarly, having 'backlinks' may be considered harmful if the publisher doesn't want the reader to easily go to another resource.

That is the point of looking at the benefit to stakeholders. It doesn't matter if some approach will or will not "create long-lasting contribution to mankind", that's not why technologies get chosen - if the stakeholders who are making the decision on whether to use this technology have an incentive to do so, it will get used, and if they don't have such an incentive, then the technology will die.

And that's the prime weakness of semantic web - its usefulness requires content creators to adopt the technology, but it doesn't provide any strong incentives for these content creators to do so; the main potential benefits accrue to someone else e.g. the general public, not to those who would need to bear the costs of adapting the content. I don't see how it can be successful without addressing this important misalignment of incentives, since incentives matter far more than technology.