Yeah, when I first got a link to a whitepaper in the newsletter, I expected it to be a… a whitepaper (I read the meaning it had back then).
After reading it properly, as if I would an academic paper, I thought it was weird that I didn’t feel like I learnt anything useful.
It would take a while (and a few other whitepapers) for me to realise what it had become.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
White papers are shit written by marketing people who try to make their little ad sound like something academic. In truth these white papers are in equal parts misunderstandings, wrong and full of useless fluff. They are AI slop, often completely without any AI involvement.
If someone is serious about the content, they call it a documentation, reference or datasheet.
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
some counter examples:
cs.umb.edu/~poneil/lsmtree.pdf
www.cs.cornell.edu/…/lakshman-ladis2009.pdf
www.usenix.org/legacy/event/atc10/…/Hunt.pdf
squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Those aren’t white papers. They are scientific papers.
White papers are written by companies as a marketing tool. The first two papers you linked above are written by universities and the last one by a research-focussed non-profit.
As per Wikipedia:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_paper
funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works 18 hours ago
While I’m not saying they don’t both exist, there are plenty of people writing the original definition for tech products, too.
And I’d argue that purely scientific papers are often written to promote products and viewpoints, too.
Evotech@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There are both
But product whitepapers are ads