Veritula – Meta
#2892·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoThe purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
This is a good idea.
I often receive criticisms that I have no counter-criticisms for, and it would be nice to be able to acknowledge those, both as a way to display gratitude, and as a way to indicate that I think something is tentatively settled.
#2889·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoThere are a few reasons people might send criticisms instead of revising an idea themselves:
- You get a chance to disagree.
- Submitting a criticism is easier.
- A criticism is a written record explaining why a revision is necessary.
Because of the third reason, you may see people post a criticism and then immediately revise your idea to address it.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m sensing a bit of frustration between the lines. Please note that Veritula pursues a higher standard of error correction than other platforms. Some criticisms may be unexpected; discussions could go in a direction you did not anticipate. You may receive criticisms that would be deemed nitpicky on other platforms, but they’re not meant to be. They may go beyond what’s strictly socially acceptable. I intend criticism to be a gift to you. For ‘small’ criticisms, it’s usually best to revise accordingly and not counter-criticize.
Your idea reads more like a question than a criticism. But since I’ve (hopefully) answered it, I’m marking this response a criticism to neutralize it.
Thank you for clarifying this. The idea of submitting a criticism and also immediately revising makes sense.
The criticisms you shared today (that inspired me to post #2884) are valid. This question came out of confusion as to how Veritula is intended to be used, rather than frustration directed at you.
The purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.
Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.
#2884·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoSince users are able to revise other users’ ideas, why is it standard practice on Veritula to submit trivial improvements to ideas (such as correction of typos, poor grammar and redundancies) as criticisms, rather than directly revising the idea itself? Example: #2865
Perhaps I have misunderstood the intention of enabling users to revise other people’s ideas.
There are a few reasons people might send criticisms instead of revising an idea themselves:
- You get a chance to disagree.
- Submitting a criticism is easier.
- A criticism is a written record explaining why a revision is necessary.
Because of the third reason, you may see people post a criticism and then immediately revise your idea to address it.
Maybe I’m wrong but I’m sensing a bit of frustration between the lines. Please note that Veritula pursues a higher standard of error correction than other platforms. Some criticisms may be unexpected; discussions could go in a direction you did not anticipate. You may receive criticisms that would be deemed nitpicky on other platforms, but they’re not meant to be. They may go beyond what’s strictly socially acceptable. I intend criticism to be a gift to you. For ‘small’ criticisms, it’s usually best to revise accordingly and not counter-criticize.
Your idea reads more like a question than a criticism. But since I’ve (hopefully) answered it, I’m marking this response a criticism to neutralize it.
Sorry, I was debugging something and temporarily disabled this feature. Should be back up.
#2771·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoYes, see here: https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta
Give it a shot.
This is no longer working for me.
I am currently unable to zoom out to the full width when accessing Veritula on mobile.
Since users are able to revise other users’ ideas, why is it standard practice on Veritula to submit trivial improvements to ideas (such as correction of typos, poor grammar and redundancies) as criticisms, rather than directly revising the idea itself? Example: #2865
Perhaps I have misunderstood the intention of enabling users to revise other people’s ideas.
Continuing on from #2882, would it make sense to enable users to criticise the discussion/entry/topic, such that it would render a criticism pill?
#2871·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion.
Top-level criticisms don’t criticize the discussion as a whole. They’re just criticisms of something. Anything. It depends on context.
For example, top-level criticisms in the Veritula – Meta discussion are often bug reports. So they’re criticisms of Veritula.
If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change? What if a user wishes to express that they take issue with something written in the entry/topic body text? I suppose they would quote it in their top-level criticism.
#2875·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months ago… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
About sections are for context or background info, not content.
Given #2877, will this still be the case?
#2878·Dennis HackethalOP, 2 months agoI still think that Veritula already offers what you want – posting a single, top-level idea that is structured any way you like, to a new discussion whose title can be as open-ended as you like – but I’m sympathetic to your motivation.
Not every user is always interested in starting a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there. And although others should still be able to discuss that information, criticism chains and all, that may not always be their primary motivation for posting the information in the first place.
So I’m open to replacing the word ‘discussion’ with a more general word. It should still communicate a sort of ‘grouping’ of ideas but need not be as narrow as ‘discussion’. Would that help?
ChatGPT suggestions:
Topic, thread, subject, space, entry, note / post / piece, context, cluster.
It’s also worth considering what each word would sound like in terms of UI elements. For example, ‘Start a new topic’, ‘Share a space’, etc.
So I’m open to replacing the word ‘discussion’ with a more general word. It should still communicate a sort of ‘grouping’ of ideas but need not be as narrow as ‘discussion’. Would that help?
Certainly. I think this makes a lot sense.
I think ‘entry’ is my favourite of the ones you mentioned (and of some others I explored with Gemini). ‘Topic’ is also alright, but seems more leading than ‘entry’. I like ‘entry’ because it seems the most agnostic to user intent, while also working fine with UI elements.
#2753·Benjamin Davies revised 2 months agoIdea: Veritula Articles
Currently, Veritula is a discussion website. I believe it could one day do what Wikipedia and Grokipedia do, but better.
A step towards that would be enabling users to produce ‘articles’ or something similar.
An ‘Articles’ tab would be distinct from the ‘Discussions’ tab, featuring explanatory documents similar to encyclopedia entries, and perhaps also blogpost-like content.
Articles focus on distilling the good ideas created/discovered in the discussions that occur on Veritula.
I still think that Veritula already offers what you want – posting a single, top-level idea that is structured any way you like, to a new discussion whose title can be as open-ended as you like – but I’m sympathetic to your motivation.
Not every user is always interested in starting a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there. And although others should still be able to discuss that information, criticism chains and all, that may not always be their primary motivation for posting the information in the first place.
So I’m open to replacing the word ‘discussion’ with a more general word. It should still communicate a sort of ‘grouping’ of ideas but need not be as narrow as ‘discussion’. Would that help?
ChatGPT suggestions:
Topic, thread, subject, space, entry, note / post / piece, context, cluster.
It’s also worth considering what each word would sound like in terms of UI elements. For example, ‘Start a new topic’, ‘Share a space’, etc.
#2753·Benjamin Davies revised 2 months agoIdea: Veritula Articles
Currently, Veritula is a discussion website. I believe it could one day do what Wikipedia and Grokipedia do, but better.
A step towards that would be enabling users to produce ‘articles’ or something similar.
An ‘Articles’ tab would be distinct from the ‘Discussions’ tab, featuring explanatory documents similar to encyclopedia entries, and perhaps also blogpost-like content.
Articles focus on distilling the good ideas created/discovered in the discussions that occur on Veritula.
You wrote in #2856:
… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
If you are willing to do that, I don’t see the need for this new feature.
#2755·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoTop-level ideas need to be published to a specific discussion, which will cause some amount of silo-ing or similar dynamics.
See #2765. People can make discussions as general as they want. So there need not be any silo-ing.
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
About sections are for context or background info, not content.
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
… is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section?
Yes. About sections can’t be part of criticism chains.
#2857·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoNote: Discussions with outstanding top-level criticisms do not render a 'criticised' pill like ideas with outstanding criticisms do.
They’re not supposed to, see #2871.
#2856·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoSince discussions themselves are criticisable, is there anything wrong with just titling a discussion 'Karl Popper' and then putting the equivalent of an encyclopedia article in the about section? That is functionally identical to what an article would be, but I am interested if you would prefer discussions not be used that way.
Since discussions themselves are criticisable…
They’re not, see #2871.
#2855·Benjamin Davies, 2 months agoI just realised that it is possible to publish a top-level idea as a 'criticism' in a discussion, in the way I have advocated an article would be criticisable. I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion. @dennis-hackethal may you please explain this?
I am struggling to understand what it means to criticise a discussion.
Top-level criticisms don’t criticize the discussion as a whole. They’re just criticisms of something. Anything. It depends on context.
For example, top-level criticisms in the Veritula – Meta discussion are often bug reports. So they’re criticisms of Veritula.
Doesn’t sound as serious/legitimate as I’d like in this context.
#2816·Benjamin Davies revised 2 months agoThe user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has lead me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
lead
led
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
Posting a sibling on an existing discussion is far easier.