Veritula – Meta

Dennis Hackethal started this discussion over 1 year ago.

Archive·Search·Activity

Discuss Veritula itself. For feedback and suggestions.

  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.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Diffs should omit unchanged lines. Maybe just leave up to three lines around changed content for context – that’s how git does it.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Done as of cc8e3e9. It now says ‘x unchanged lines collapsed’. See eg this activity.

Criticism of #422Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Now that diffs are formatted, they don’t omit unchanged lines anymore.

Criticism of #426
Tom Nassis’s avatar

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?

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

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.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology? Larry Sanger (a founder of Wikipedia) has said that he now thinks Wikipedia should have competing articles on the same topic to allow for the fact that people disagree.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Would it be possible / worth it to produce a competitor to Wikipedia based on Popperian epistemology?

Yes, sure.

The idea of having a Wikipedia equivalent that presents high quality competing articles detailing different alternative explanations for things (with some sort of versioning and methods of criticism) excites me greatly.

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

We ‘just’ need to get more users. As I wrote in #628, posting a breaking news story could work. If users submit ideas on events as they unfold and then criticize those ideas, visitors see what’s happening at a glance. It could be easier for them to know which ideas they can adopt than on conventional news channels or even Wikipedia, IMO.

There are also ‘timeless’ debates that have been going on for decades where Veritula can offer clarity. Like on the abortion debate. People shouldn’t have to keep debating that over and over when it’s a matter where objective truth can be found and then acted on.

I have thought of producing something like this myself, which was part of what drew me to Veritula.

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

One thing that Wikipedia articles are very good for is providing well-structured information on a given subject. Discussion threads are not so well structured (the order of information is not based on how high-level or foundational it is, like an encyclopedia entry would be, but rather on the nested chronology of whatever discussion happened to take place.)

Criticism of #2311Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Top-level ideas can be structured any way you as author want them to be. (Any idea at any level can, but top-level ideas are presumably where articles could live.) The structure of any particular idea can be different from the structure of the discussion as a whole.

Criticism of #2312
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Me, too. I think Veritula’s design allows for this pretty naturally since the topic of a discussion can be general enough for various competing ideas to be posted in the discussion.

Veritula emphasises making one point at a time for ease of criticism and discussion, which is useful in a forum but makes absorbing the totality of an idea a little more tedious compared to a quick glance at an encyclopedia article. (It is possible I have misunderstood some aspect of Veritula here.)

Criticism of #2311Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Veritula cautions against making multiple points at once so as to avoid ‘bulk criticism’. But people can write as much as they want in a single idea. For example, you can find several long-form articles in ‘How Does Veritula Work?’. It just depends on how confident people are in their ideas, and how much they have practiced using Veritula.

Criticism of #2313
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

As much as I dislike LLMs, I’m thinking of using them to show summaries of discussions at the top of the page. Summaries would reflect ideas without pending criticisms.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

I think definitely worth trying, sounds like fun

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

My vision is for an online encyclopedia that contains complete articles describing the totality of a perspective, with articles for alternate explanations readily available. I see many problems with this idea but I think it is worth exploring.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

I’m curious btw, how did you hear about Veritula?

I believe I came across it while exploring your blog. My ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea was particularly sharp in my mind in that moment, so I was very excited to see how you had set things up here. I think a tremendous amount of it is transferable.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I’m happy to have you and for your contributions, but I have to ask: do you see yourself building a Veritula competitor at some point in the future?

Benjamin Davies’s avatar
3rd of 3 versions

No, I think the ‘Popperian Wikipedia’ idea is too different to Veritula for it to be a competitor. Veritula is primarily a discussion tool. I envision more of an encyclopedia of competing ideas presented independently of each other, with no (or very little) discussion functionality.

For example, on the topic of addiction, this site would contain different articles explaining different models of what addiction is, how it works, etc. Each article would explain the given model from within its own framework, rather than from some pre-approved framework and set of sources (as is currently the case at Wikipedia).

I realise “methods of criticism” in my reply above may have confused that somewhat.

I think my idea could be made within Veritula, if you would be interested. Different explanations could be cataloged in Wikipedia-style articles (with versioning), which could then be referred to and discussed in threads here. Maybe we should open a discussion for this potential feature?

At the end of the day, I think something like that should exist in the world, and I am indifferent to how it might come about. It wouldn’t bother me if I wasn’t involved. I would also consider financially supporting someone who gave me good reason to think they had the vision, the motivation, and the technical skill to create it.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I would also consider financially supporting someone who gave me good reason to think they had the vision, the motivation, and the technical skill to create it.

I’m interested. Let’s continue this discussion privately for now. Email me: dh at dennishackethal.com

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

The red ‘Criticized’ label shows how many pending criticisms an idea has. For example ‘Criticized (5)’ means the idea has five pending criticisms.

But if there are lots of comments, including non-criticisms and addressed criticisms, it’s hard to identify pending criticisms.

There should be an easy way to filter comments of a given idea down to only pending criticisms.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

The red ‘Criticized’ label could be a link leading to a filtered version of ideas#show.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

The red ‘Criticized’ label could be clickable and filter the displayed comments ‘in place’.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

That would probably be stretching the capabilities of Stimulus…

Criticism of #1869Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Could probably use Turbo frames instead.

Criticism of #1877
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There could be a separate button to filter comments down.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Revisions are complicated. Too many options (superseding a previous version, ‘Is criticism?’, unchecking comments). It might help to have a more guided processes over multiple screens.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
9th of 9 versions

Feature idea: pay people to criticize an idea.

You start a ‘bounty’ of an arbitrary amount (min. USD 5), which is prorated among eligible critics after some deadline.

There could then be a page for bounties at /bounties. And a page listing a user’s bounties at /:username/bounties.

When starting a bounty, the user writes terms for the kinds of criticism they want. This way, they avoid having to pay people pointing out typos or other unwanted criticisms.

Anyone can start a bounty on any idea. There can only be one bounty per idea at a time.

To ensure a criticism is worthy of the bounty, the initiator gets a grace period of 24 hours at the end to review pending criticisms. Inaction automatically awards the bounty to all pending criticisms at the end of the grace period.

CriticismCriticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Could this feature be unified with #2669 somehow?

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

No need, see #3420.

Criticism of #3061
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Need to address the risk of the initiator himself being a bad actor who rejects pending criticisms for arbitrary reasons just to avoid paying.

Criticism of #4126Criticized4
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There could be an additional grace period for admins to review the initiator’s selections.

Criticism of #3486
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

People who feel cheated can reach out to admins to report bad bounty initiators. Admins can then prevent such initiators from starting more bounties in the future.

Criticism of #3486
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

A modification of #2513 could work. Say you start a bounty. Your card is authorized for twice the ceiling. If you’re a good citizen, you’ll be charged the ceiling, at most. But if you’re found to submit arbitrary criticisms to avoid paying, your card is charged the full authorization. Admins can even decide to stop the bounty early if they detect abuse before the grace period beings.

Criticism of #3486
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I can roll out the feature to a few trusted users. Then I can reevaluate later with more experience to judge actual risks rather than speculate ahead of time.

Criticism of #3486
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
3rd of 3 versions

Need to address the risk of people submitting arbitrary counter-criticisms just before the deadline to exclude competing criticisms from the bounty.

The grace period for the initiator unfortunately does not address this risk since he may decide not to review problematic criticisms.

Criticism of #4126Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

See #3452. Other critics have an incentive to report abuse. People found to abuse deadlines could become ineligible for payouts and excluded from participating in future bounties.

Criticism of #3494
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Been trying a slight modification of bounties in prod for a couple of weeks or so. Working well so far.

@dirk-meulenbelt recently offered to chip in for a bounty I want to run. That got me thinking: multiple people should be able to fund bounties.

Criticism of #4126Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

This is now a feature, see the ‘Funding’ section of a bounty.

Criticism of #3912
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Need ‘standing’ bounties: they don’t expire. I keep finding myself wanting a standing bounty for #3069 so I don’t have to re-run expiring bounties.

Criticism of #4126
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Feature idea: page at /ideas/:id/guide which shows you an idea and helps you address all pending criticisms one by one, if any. At the end, it shows a message ‘You’re all set!’ or something like that.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Maybe there could be some type of guide for a user’s ideas generally. It takes him through all of his controversial ideas and let’s him either counter-criticize pending criticisms or revise his ideas, one at a time. And maybe the user could also choose to ‘abandon’ a controversial idea, in which case the guide would not show the idea again (unless maybe there was some new activity on the idea?).

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

‘Veritula’ is a difficult name, people don’t know how to spell or pronounce it. They can’t easily remember it.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Idea: ‘The Second Renaissance’, ‘2nd Renaissance’, ‘2R’ for short.

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Renaissance’ isn’t exactly easy to spell either.

Criticism of #2654
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Idea: ‘Return to Reason’, ‘RR’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Sanctimonious/preachy

Criticism of #2655
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Idea: ‘Reason Arena’, ‘RA’

I like something with ‘Arena’ because it would imply action, some ideas winning out over others, and has a Darwinian aspect to it. Our best ideas are the tentative champions in the arena of ideas, waiting for the next challenger.

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I have largely inexplicit criticisms of the word ‘arena’ in this context, but one that bubbled up to the explicit level is that the word reminds me of Pokemon for some reason 😅

Criticism of #2736
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

What is wrong with Pokemon? 😂

Criticism of #2810Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Doesn’t sound as serious/legitimate as I’d like in this context.

Criticism of #2843
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

Idea: ‘Conjecture Arena’, ‘CA’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

#2810 applies to this idea as well.

Criticism of #2738
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Idea: Links within Veritula could be made bidirectional. While viewing an idea, users could see all the ideas that refer to it. This could be displayed as a list of backlinks at the bottom of the idea’s page.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

This could lead to a cool knowledge graph feature down the line, where users could see how ideas might relate across discussions, and which ideas are referred to the most.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.

While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.

CriticismCriticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Topic’

Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

This makes me think of “discussion topic”.

Criticism of #2913
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Thread’

Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Similar to ‘discussion’.

Criticism of #2914
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Why is similarity a bad thing in and of itself? It can be reminiscent of discussions as long as it’s less narrow.

Criticism of #2933Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Similarity is fine if it is less narrow, but ‘thread’ doesn’t seem any less narrow than ‘discussion’ to me. A ‘thread’ usually means a reply chain.

Criticism of #2940
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I have found myself using this term naturally, as in ‘starting a thread on Veritula’. I believe I’ve heard others say this, too.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Subject’

Criticized2
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

I have an inexplicit criticism of this relating to “school subject”.

Criticism of #2915
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Makes me think of “subject of discussion”.

Criticism of #2915
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Space’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Sounds like a voice chat (like Twitter spaces)

Criticism of #2916
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Entry’

Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

I can’t decide if this communicates a grouping of ideas. Seems borderline.

Criticism of #2917
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Note’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.

Criticism of #2918
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Post’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.

Criticism of #2919
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Piece’

Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Doesn’t communicate a grouping of ideas.

Criticism of #2920
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Context’

Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Too jargon-y.

Criticism of #2921
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

“Go check out the Karl Popper context on Veritula” would only make sense if you are already a Veritula user who is accustomed to using this terminology.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Cluster’

Criticized1
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

This actually seems anti-discussion. Sounds like a grouping of ideas that are only related by conceptual proximity, rather than building on each other.

Criticism of #2922
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Tyler recently wrote to me, in the context of a question he wanted to figure out, “would be good to Veritula this.” Cool seeing ‘Veritula’ used as a verb.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

‘Board’

Criticism of #2912
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

@dennis-hackethal see the revision chain on #3164. Revision 5 improved the content but I accidentally removed valuable comments. Revision 6 (a revision of revision 4) brought back the comments but I failed to include the content improvement in revision 5. I then made revision 7 to have both the comments and the improved content.

Maybe it should be possible to amend which comments apply to an idea without needing to make a whole new revision. This could behave weirdly in some edge cases, but it’s food for thought. If you think the way it currently works is going to be best, that seems fine to me.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Idea: voice spaces, like Twitter spaces, except an AI generates a transcript and automatically turns it into a discussion tree, with criticism chains and all.

Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

@tyler-mills says:

I keep coming back to a graph-based presentation. Every comment a node, edges red if ending in criticisms. I crave a way to see structurally how many red criticism threads and grey comment threads are stemming from a given idea. The red ones could be bold and bright if they lead to an uncriticized idea, else dim and thin. Then we can see at a glance which ideas are sources of more criticisms, and/or hold greater opportunities for further criticism — can see which ideas are “deeper” niches, one might say (..!). Have greater evolvability…

Basically not doable for the user with the current bubble+hashtag method. But again it could just be an optional view. I think I mentioned I find that Kialo does a cool job with their sun dial diagrams (which are optional).

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

How would you preview text in nodes?

Criticism of #3904Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Tyler says:

No preview necessarily, or the first sentence upon mouse-over could work. I’m imagining a structural view independent of the main view. (Though still suggest looking at columns for each idea in the main view).

Criticism of #3906
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

@tyler-mills says:

… I’m finding the threads a bit cumbersome to keep track of. Would love an option to have each top level idea in a column, and horizontal scrolling would be fine with me if there are many of them.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Code blocks need syntax highlighting.

Veritula used to have this feature but I removed it when diffing changed.

Criticism
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Done as of cc1ab95.

Ruby example:

ruby
def criticized? idea
pending_criticisms(idea).any?
end
def pending_criticisms idea
criticisms(idea).filter { |c| pending_criticisms(c).none? }
end
def criticisms idea
children(idea).filter(&:criticism?)
end

JS example (h/t ChatGPT):

javascript
function criticized(idea) {
return pendingCriticisms(idea).length > 0;
}
function pendingCriticisms(idea) {
return criticisms(idea).filter(c => pendingCriticisms(c).length === 0);
}
function criticisms(idea) {
return children(idea).filter(c => c.isCriticism);
}
Criticism of #3950Criticized3
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

When an idea has nothing but a code block, there’s too much of a margin at the bottom, between the block and the border of the highlight.

Criticism of #3951Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Fixed as of a44c6c0.

Criticism of #3956
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

The diff view can’t handle the removal/replacement of entire code blocks yet. The removed block looks broken, the new block doesn’t show at all. See activity 3207 in dev.

Criticism of #3951
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There’s a small issue related to previewing changes in code blocks: even when there are no changes yet, if the code overflows horizontally, the scroll shadow is shown through DOM manipulation, which in turn triggers the diffing library into thinking the user made a change.

So then the same code block is shown without any changes, under the ‘Changes’ tab, which is confusing. It should still just say ‘No changes’.

Criticism of #3951
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

There’s an issue with horizontal scroll for overflowing code blocks in the activity feed on mobile. Can’t scroll all the way to the right.

Criticism of #3951Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Fixed as of e49cd8d.

Criticism of #4016
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Would be nice if the copy button was sticky-top so that it scrolled with the user.

Criticism of #3951
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Done as of 43c4ecc.

Criticism of #4023Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

I spoke to soon. Rolling this back for now. Too jittery when scrolling on mobile. Non-trivial to implement. Need to see how other sites do it.

Criticism of #4032
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
2nd of 2 versions

On mobile, there needs to be more of a padding on the right, inside the code block.

Criticism of #3951Criticized1
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

Done as of 609b5c3.

Criticism of #4027
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar

When the code overflows horizontally, a subtle inset shadow on the side shows that you can scroll:

javascript
const posts = [
{id: 1, title: "Understanding JavaScript Closures in Depth", url: "https://example.com/articles/javascript-closures-deep-dive"},
{id: 2, title: "A Complete Guide to Modern Web Development Practices", url: "https://example.com/articles/modern-web-dev-guide"},
{id: 3, title: "Exploring the Node.js Event Loop and Async Patterns", url: "https://example.com/articles/nodejs-event-loop"}
];
function formatPost(post) {
return `${post.id}: ${post.title} -> ${post.url}`;
}
function prettyPrint(posts) {
return posts.map(formatPost).join(" | ");
}
console.log(prettyPrint(posts));