Quotability vs ankifiability
Something is quotable if it is easy to make into a quote. As someone who has written a bunch of Wikiquote pages, I've paid attention to this property of people. Some people are much more quotable than others (despite not being so different on insightfulness).
Something is ankifiable if it is easy to turn into an Anki card. As someone who aspires to virtuoso-level ability in using Anki, I've thought a lot about how to turn a piece of text (such as a math textbook or online essay) into an Anki card. Some texts are much more ankifiable than others.
It seems to me that quotable things and ankifiable things both have the property of locality: the punch is packed into a small part of the text, which you can "clip out" into an atomic insight. When an insight is developed over time, such that there is no single sentence or paragraph that contains the insight (such as in a discursive text), it is much more difficult to ankify.
In some sense, incremental reading can be seen as giving up on ankifiability of a text (as ankifiability seems like a much more restrictive property compared to quotability) and instead using quotability as a proxy for what content to add to one's deck.