Veritula – Meta
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.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.
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.
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?
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.)
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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?).
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.
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.
‘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.
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.
Why is similarity a bad thing in and of itself? It can be reminiscent of discussions as long as it’s less narrow.
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.
I have found myself using this term naturally, as in ‘starting a thread on Veritula’. I believe I’ve heard others say this, too.
I have an inexplicit criticism of this relating to “school subject”.
I can’t decide if this communicates a grouping of ideas. Seems borderline.
“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.
This actually seems anti-discussion. Sounds like a grouping of ideas that are only related by conceptual proximity, rather than building on each other.
@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.
Veritula should have a 'Posts' tab next to the 'Discussions' tab, where people can browse the things people post on their profiles.
I first want to see some more people posting to their profiles so there’ll be enough ideas to show in that tab.
Doesn’t the ‘Search’ tab offer what you want? I could rename it to ‘Posts’. Maybe ‘Ideas’.
Search is site-wide. I have in mind a feed of what people are writing, that isn't in discussions.
I understand this might be too social-media-y for your taste, but I think it would be good to have. It doesn't need to be prominent. Discussions can remain the main focus.
Also, did you know you can follow people? Click the bell icon when you visit someone’s profile.
I would like to follow you but I don't want my notifications full of bug fix stuff 😅
If there was more granularity to the follow function I would use it a lot I think.
If I mute a discussion, does that stop me from getting notifications from the people I follow, when they interact with that discussion?
If I mute a discussion, does that stop me from getting notifications from the people I follow, when they interact with that discussion?
Yes.
As a rule of thumb, specificity beats generality. For example, if you follow someone but mute a discussion, you won’t be notified of their posts in that discussion. But if you then subscribe to a specific thread in that muted discussion, you will get notifications for that thread.
There are exceptions. If you mute someone, you’ll never be notified of their actions, no matter how specific.
Suggestion: Allow reacts to be used in the activity feed.
That way I can quickly add colour to whatever has been happening recently on the site.
Idea: ability to lock an idea to prevent edits. If you submit the first version, you get to lock the idea. Useful especially on your own profile that you might use as more of a blog and don’t necessarily want others changing your ideas.
Alternatively, you could make an option "allow revisions by other users" in the new idea form that is off by default.
Need rate limiting for new users to prevent excessive posting.
Someone who recently joined made a bunch of low-quality posts in a short amount of time.
Idea: communities.
Communities group or maybe even replace discussions.
Could live at /v/community-name.
There could be a community around nutrition, another for software engineering, a meta community for Veritula, etc.
@davies could have his own community to build his Wikipedia competitor.
Not if the criticism is clear and concise. That should be incentivized somehow.
A discussion can get long even if each criticism is concise.
The UI needs to be more minimalistic. Too many buttons to click on. Needs clear primary action on every screen.
A discussion needs to be more skimmable via one or both of these:
1. hide long posts behind "read more" button
2. collapse critique chains/threads behind a "reply more" button
Thoughts on an optional "implies" relation for ideas? I find myself commenting on one idea something which it implies, then criticizing that, but the original idea is not marked criticized. Being able to chain or bundle ideas avoids the bookkeeping issue of having to make new criticisms for each step in the chain, if one is criticized.
Related to this or not, it could be useful to be able to set a bounty on a set of ideas, rather than just one. "Criticize any of these ideas for n$".
My profile shows my revision to #5126 under Wall and under Activity, but not the post itself under the Wall. The revision is a jumble of red and green highlighted text (in this case, because the revision was significant), hard to read. Wall should only show latest versions of posts, not edits to them. Edits should go under Activity. And/or have the previous post versions viewable with the little arrows, as usual (and as done in the idea-focused view, after you click on the idea itself). Always show latest versions of ideas on the Wall so it's clear and easy to read.
Idea: showing the quickest way to rehabilitate an idea.
Could be a visual feature showing something like the shortest path down a discussion tree where a criticism needs to be addressed.
Or all such branches.
Such a thing has probably been done in graph theory before, could look for existing algorithms.
Offer easy way to link to latest version of an idea. The ability already exists – an idea link + /latest will always go to the latest version – but isn’t directly exposed in the form of a link or button yet.
Tyler suggested (#3904) we use the chart type from Kialo:
Could be a useful visualization in addition to trees.
Each top-level idea would be the center node. Then red segments around it for pending criticisms. Gray for non-pending criticisms and neutral comments.
Unlike Kialo, though, each segment would have the same size as the other segments on its circle.