Alpedia? Alan's Encyclopedia?

Since at least age 25 I have liked gathering information.  Subjects of particular interest, say, before age 40, included Mormonism, baseball, history, health and natural food diet, exercise, the Divine and the Human, English literature from 1300 to Samuel Johnson, Spanish, Portuguese, Latin, western US landscape beauty, geography . . .   Get the idea?  I acted like a not-so-organized encyclopedist.

In 2008 the age of personal computing added its swing to my encyclopedic sway.  I set up a file on my computer entitled, for lack of a better term, Alpedia, or Alan's Book.  In that file 9 years later I see these titles:  Art history, Medicine, Respiratory Therapy, Astronony (80 pages), and 127 Reasons I walked out the rear door of the Mormon Church and never came back.

I began printing out what I had compiled or written as original work.   That collection now has seven large looseleaf binders with maybe 250 pages each.  I don't suppose any other person, except maybe Dead Joan or Dead Andy, really cares (this could be true of this whole blog), but here's a list
  Vol 1   Autobiography:  Sex and the Single Mormon Boy
              Regions:  Arizona, Utah, California (the main places I've lived), New Mexico, Colorado...
  Vol 2  Autobio II   My first sixty years in the Desert Southwest
             Diaries of hit and miss years since 2000
  Vol 3  Family history:   75 pages on Dad, 75 pages on Eric my son, 15 pages on Great-Gpa Hardy and 30 pages of Gr Grma Hardy
   Vol 4  more diary
   Vol 5  Constitutional law
              Health
             Medicine
             Copyright law
   Vol 6  Respiratory Care: theory and practice  (the field I've used to make about 75% of my money)
   Vol 7 Astronomy
             Developing a personal library and keeping track of it
             Notes on books I've read

After, oh, 2006? I began reading a large number of things on Wikipedia, Jimmy so and so's public contribution online encyclopedia.  Then I began adding things in myself.  Nearly as quickly as I did, at least half of my pieces got either chopped out as a whole, or severely changed and edited.  That's how the system works.

Yet I began chafing at the "encyclopedic attitude" of Wikipedia.  Here's an example of why.  I was reading a autobiography of a writer named Alice Bailey and looked at her Wikipedia entry.  Very informative and useful quotes from her autobio had been removed from earlier drafts because Wikipedia doesn't want to use too much "original material."  In other words, were I to write essays or books about Bailey and quote from her own writing about herself, that could be used liberally in Wikipedia because it's from a Secondary Source instead of from a Primary Source.  This attitude drives me nuts!
  In fact, I blogged about my general frustration with Wikipedia and gave what seems two years later to be an almost damning indictment of the Wikipedia method and how it avoids all sorts of information that could be educational and helpful.  Sept 15, 2015, Quote:
I was a tourist in NYC and wanted to learn more about the Upper East Side.  I read a multipage Wikipedia entry on it that gave general and historical information and then turned into several pages of lists:  the Upper East Side's public schools, private schools, coeducational schools, colleges, art institutes, museums, diplomatic missions, houses of worship, hotels, and finally more than a dozen films about this socially impressive segment of Manhattan.  Yet Wikipedia, as it often does, mostly told me what I more or less already knew and added some good if limited details.   It duplicated much of what my tourbook of NYC said.  Neither one got me to the spirit or heart of the Upper East Side, if it has either one.
Further websearching found a short piece I probably could not find again that said this is where "the New Yorkers that run the world live." It added that gentrification had recently led the Upper East Side to chew off from Spanish Harlem "96th and 97th streets," though it may not have phrased it that well.
In about 20 words of unfootnoted opinion using the literary license of overstatement and wisecracking, this web author had told me more about the Upper East Side than the uncounted minions of Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales had been able to say in 8 or 10 pages of text backed by 58 footnotes, that had surely taken them 1000 hours to write and edit.
I use Wikipedia "all the time" in spite of myself whenever I want basic, hopefully reliable information on a subject with which I'm not that familiar.  I'm glad it's there.  I've even donated to it twice--once I gave $3 and the second time I moved up to $5.  I have never been told by another breathing human that s/he donated to Wikipedia, which probably just tells you I'm in with the Out Crowd.
Yet I'd like to readily find other less-regimented essays on subjects, and may start a website to do just that in areas of my interest.  Maybe call it InfoGuy or Knowledge Page or ??  Question: how do you get into the web search results?  I see no evidence at all that the content of my blogs are ever considered in web searches, but maybe I need to look below the first 75 hits.




Cheya and I could combine blogs.