Academia has responded to (a) with the "living review" [0]. It's a step in the right direction, I guess, but I can't help feeling that it's gatekeeping, and fails to be as dynamic as it might.

Efforts such as TRIP database [1] are also operating in this domain, trying to bring computational solutions to dusty old academic processes.

[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_review

[1] https://www.tripdatabase.com/

Building something like this was kind of the idea of Scholarpedia [1], founded by Eugene M. Izhikevich (theoretical neuroscientist). The articles are reviews written by experts in the field, peer-reviewed, and supposed to be updated over time. Most articles happen to be in neuroscience and related fields, but that was more an accident and not by design.

Unfortunately, the project has never really taken off, and only few new articles have been added over the past few years. And of course, just as I am writing this comment, I realize that [2] now redirects to some domain squatter and is blacklisted by my DNS server...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholarpedia

[2] https://scholarpedia.org/

> [2] now redirects to some domain squatter and is blacklisted by my DNS server...

I hope this is temporary, I found Scholarpedia very useful for certain scientific topics where Wikipedia didn't go into quite enough detail.

Absolutely agree - but most good quality WP articles will include a range of references to primary literature that helps with b and c!