Veritula – Meta
Discussion started by Dennis Hackethal
Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas, and submit new ideas.Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions.
When all I change during a revision is the criticism flag, the activity log just says ‘no changes’.
As of 9702c05, a revision activity now says that the idea was either marked or unmarked as a criticism.
As of 9702c05, a revision activity now says that the idea was either marked or unmarked as a criticism.
Hi all! This platform looks like such an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Hi all! This platform looks like an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Hi all! This platform looks like such an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
When all I change during a revision is the criticism flag, the activity log just says ‘no changes’.
As of 9702c05, a revision activity now says that the idea was either marked or unmarked as a criticism.
Hi all! This platform looks like an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Hi all! This platform looks like such an awesome idea!
This discussion says, "Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions."
I wanted to ask about how many members are here. And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Should I give the icons in the activity feed colors?
Highlight current nav item.
When a comment is a criticism on another criticism, the activity should say ‘So and so addressed criticism #…’
When a comment is a criticism on another criticism, the activity should say ‘So and so addressed criticism #…’
In activity feed, behind timestamp (‘… hours ago’), link to corresponding discussion.
In activity feed, behind timestamp (‘… hours ago’), link to corresponding discussion.
There should be user profiles.
Done as of b3c06c4, see eg my profile.
There should be user profiles.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the hunk header is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning the header provides no real information. So I might as well remove it.
Done as of 8d3eed0, see eg the version history of #414.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the diff information is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning it provides no real information. So I might as well remove that part.
Since the diff processes the text as a single line, the hunk header is always going to say either @@ -0,0 +1 @@ (for the first version) or @@ -1 +1 @@ (for every subsequent version). Meaning the header provides no real information. So I might as well remove it.
There’s a bug where hovering over a link in the markdown preview removes the form and all typed text. Hovering over a link should have no effect on the form.
There’s a bug where hovering over a link in the markdown preview removes the form and all typed text. Hovering over a link should have no effect on the form.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he cannot rationally hold.
Now that there are user profiles (#408), each profile can have a tab for unproblematic ideas. Among all the ideas a user has submitted, those are the ones he can rationally hold. And another tab for problematic ideas, ie ideas he has submitted that he cannot rationally hold.
Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’.
Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’. See eg this activity.
Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.
Would be neat linking to a specific activity.
Done as of a02e6c4, see eg this activity.
Would be neat linking to a specific activity.
There’s a bug where right-clicking in a form to paste text doesn’t result in the preview updating.
There’s a bug where right-clicking in a form to paste text doesn’t result in the preview updating.
Dirk Meulenbelt says the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
06d3241List contributors at top of version historyComma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance. Eg see here
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasc5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideae0fbd41List user under each revision in version history
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
06d3241List contributors at top of version historyComma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
06d3241List contributors at top of version historyComma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance. Eg see here
Dirk Meulenbelt the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.
Dirk Meulenbelt says the concept of revising someone else’s idea is not intuitive.
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasc5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideae0fbd41List user under each revision in version history
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
06d3241List contributors at top of version historyComma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance
The following commits should address this:
3af3966Clarify in title that someone revised an idea (rathen than originated idea)The HTML title now says ‘Idea x revised by…’
6c70ceaUnderneath idea, indicate that someone revised an idea (rather than submitted it)It says ‘Dennis Hackethal, 1 day ago’ for new ideas, ‘Dennis Hackethal revised 1 day ago’ for revisions
d20d386Explain that users can revise each others’ ideasAs part of the alert on the revision page, when the user is about to revise someone else’s idea.
c5748e3Turn ‘revise’ link into ‘revise their idea’ when it’s someone else’s ideaUnderneath each idea.
e0fbd41List user under each revision in version historySo that each version is clearly attributed to the corresponding user.
06d3241List contributors at top of version historyComma-separated list to see all contributors at a glance. Eg see here
Tom Nassis asks (#448):
I wanted to ask about how many members are here.
Currently 7.
And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Yes.
Tom Nassis asks (#448):
I wanted to ask about how many members are here.
Currently 7.
And whether it's encouraged to invite more people, in order to add more and more conversations.
Yes.
The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.
The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.
The more ideas there are in a discussion, the further the form for top-level ideas is pushed down. Then people don’t know how to submit a new idea and comment on an existing one instead, even if it’s unrelated, as happened with #448. So I need to make this clearer.
Now that there are notifications, people should be able to @mention each other.
Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545.
Mostly done, apart from some polishing, as of 5f5c545. Eg @dennis-hackethal.
Now that there are notifications, people should be able to @mention each other.
I'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.
Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.
So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.
They can also use it like this:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
You marked this as a criticism but it sounds like you’re agreeing with me.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
And yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.
Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.
So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.
They can also use it like this:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
And yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
You suggest replacing discussion trees:
[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.
But then you also write:
Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.
Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general.
I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general.
I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
You suggest replacing discussion trees:
[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.
But then you also write:
Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.
Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.
I'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
I'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
I'm still getting a feel for this platform. I'm wondering whether it would help promote wider and deeper engagement if Veritula was organized in terms of problems and their solutions. So instead of discussions, discussion trees, and broad topics such as 'Abortion', users would articulate problems and their solutions. Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions. This approach might also make Veritula even more Popperian. All life is problem solving as Popper says.
As I recall, previous iterations of Veritula had explicit designations such as ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ but I decided against continuing those designations. It’s been years but I think it was too rigid and felt too much like ‘red tape’. It’s easier when the only check box in this regard is a boolean for ‘criticism’.
Can’t discussions already map onto the structure you suggest?
Discussion title: problem
Top-level ideas in the discussion: proposed solutions
Nested ideas: criticisms, counter-criticisms, and further solutions
Note also that revisions act as solutions to problems. So do counter-criticisms, in a way.
So I think people can already use Veritula in the way you suggest.
They can also use it like this:
Discussion title: some topic (such as ‘abortion’)
Top-level ideas: problems
Nested ideas: solutions, criticisms and so on
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
To be clear, I'm not opposed to 'trees' in general. I was wondering whether 'discussion trees' can be replaced with 'problems-and-their-solutions trees' (for lack of a better phrasing).
And yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Makes sense to me.
'Discussions' is a much broader term than 'problems and their solutions.'
So I can see how that would allow for greater freedom.
I can also imagine some of the challenges presented in prior iterations of Veritula, if it had more of a 'problems and their solutions' structure.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Yes, I do think discussions can map onto the structure I suggest.
So, no worries. I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
But if it was tried before, why try it again? Thanks.
Perhaps some of this theory of problem-solving just shared can make it into 'How Does Veritula Work?'
Done, see #510.
I was wondering whether the 'Discussion Titles' can draw in current and future users in a more frictionless manner with problem statements.
I think you’re right, that would be best.
You suggest replacing discussion trees:
[I]nstead of […] discussion trees […] users would articulate problems and their solutions.
But then you also write:
Of course, the problem itself could be criticized as well as its proposed solutions.
Which means you’d still have trees regardless. So that sounds like a contradiction.
Veritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.
Good idea. I’ve added this to my list of features to implement.
Done as of 6251b6a, see veritula.com/members.
Done as of 6251b6a, see veritula.com/members.
[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
Well, discussions are necessarily a ‘social’ activity in that they involve at least two people, yes. I just don’t want Veritula to be yet another social network.
In a mixed society, people can prioritize truth seeking or fitting in but not both.
Well, discussions are necessarily a ‘social’ activity in that they involve at least two people, yes. I just don’t want Veritula to be yet another social network.
In a mixed society, people can prioritize truth seeking or fitting in but not both.
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no?
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no?
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
Veritula should have a section with a list of all its current members.
For now, people just have profiles.
But having a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
And would promote a greater flow of communication.
[H]aving a list of members would build a sense of rapport between the participants.
Just so you know, although I’ve implemented the list of members, I do want to be clear that Veritula is not meant for socializing.
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no?
I know what you mean, but Veritula unavoidably facilitates public (i.e. social) interactions, no? Of a certain kind, to be clear. Ideas, ideas, ideas.
Veritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.
But it never will, unless its users innovate.
How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?
I agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
I agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
Veritula deserves to scale to the size of Wikipedia.
But it never will, unless its users innovate.
How can the global success of Wikipedia inspire Veritula?
I agree that Veritula deserves to scale to something huge.
Looking through the history of Wikipedia, I see that its core concept is that of “compiling the world's knowledge in a single location […]”. To be clear, I think the core concept of Veritula is to be a programmatic implementation of Popper’s rational discussion methodology; it then becomes a dictionary for ideas as a result. It’s also less about listing facts and more about listing ideas and their logical relationship (though criticisms do provide built-in fact-checking mechanisms). That said, with enough users, Veritula could become a place with a lot of knowledge.
The linked site traces some of the success of Wikipedia to volunteers: “The use of volunteers was integral in making and maintaining Wikipedia.” So early adopters such as yourself are crucial.
In addition, 9/11 apparently played a role in making Wikipedia famous:
The September 11 attacks spurred the appearance of breaking news stories on the homepage, as well as information boxes linking related articles. At the time, approximately 100 articles related to 9/11 had been created. After the September 11 attacks, a link to the Wikipedia article on the attacks appeared on Yahoo!'s home page, resulting in a spike in traffic.
Veritula could be a place where people break news stories and others can quickly fact-check and improve upon reports by revising them. An urgent story would draw a lot of users to the site, too.
Something like Wikipedia’s arbitration process could be interesting, too.
Something similar to Wikipedia’s page-protection feature to combat “edit warring” and “prevent vandalism” could address the issue of people posting criticisms in rapid succession to protect their pet ideas.
Your suggestion to look to Wikipedia for inspiration is spot on. Thanks.
To prevent edit warring and vandalism, maybe Veritula could have a reputation system similar to that of Stack Overflow, where you need to earn enough reputation before you can edit someone else’s post, say.
Password reset is broken
Workaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.
Workaround: have users email me for password reset for now. Re-evaluate when I have enough users to merit additional infrastructure for sending emails.
Password reset is broken