Technically speaking, anything can be published online, what depends are the legalities, ethics and just general good-faith practises of writing online. Puffery is to be avoided, claims must be appropriately backup, but that doesn't take away from the fact that anything can be, in fact, written online, the legitimacy of which is matter of concern. As long as there is due process in analysing the matters of a text, what's written isn't free from proper scrutiny; a paramount faith in the public readers.  

There is no point in gatekeeping knowledge, whereby I mean 'knowledge' in terms of useful information, 'facts', opinions (as per sources and resources) and perhaps just anecdotes that I may think of as useful for the reader. I aim to make academia en-lightened (pun intended), so to make public what I think is necessary, if not necessary then at least bearing of potential use in future bears for me a moral purpose. 

As long as a write-up avoids plagiarism, 'misinformation' (not to be confused with missed narratives), defamation and then goes to properly credit the authors of information sources used, the cyberspace should have no issues with the content. 

Misinformation, would be information, relayed, read or gathered that isn't a matter of 'fact'. 'Fact' then being nothing more than the matter of things as is/are. Disagreements regarding the semantics of 'misinformation' are to be considered in the discourse, but not in the context of the text as I write, for that I am writing on the basis of 'misinformation' aforementioned.