Veritula – Meta

Showing only those parts of the discussion which lead to #2773.

See full discussion·See most recent related ideas
  Log in or sign up to participate in this discussion.
With an account, you can revise, criticize, and comment on ideas.

Discussions can branch out indefinitely. Zoom out for the bird’s-eye view.
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies revised 1 day ago·#2753
Show idea #2750Show idea #27502nd of 2 versions leading to #2773 (2 total)

Idea: 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.

Benjamin Davies’s avatar

‘Articles’ are functionally no different than top-level ideas in a discussion thread.

Criticism of #2753Criticized2oustanding criticisms
Benjamin Davies’s avatar

Top-level ideas need to be published to a specific discussion, which will cause some amount of silo-ing or similar dynamics.

Criticism of #2751
Dennis Hackethal’s avatar
Dennis HackethalOP, about 17 hours ago·#2767

Didn’t you want competing articles on some topic? In which case the same criticism applies to articles as well, unless I’m missing something.

Criticism of #2755Criticized1oustanding criticism
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies, about 10 hours ago·#2773

I used to think that articles would need to be grouped in some way, but I no longer think so. Articles will often compete, even if they aren’t about the same or even similar topic.

E.g. an article ‘Easy-to-Vary Explanations’ would compete with an article ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’

Users would be able to point out and connect conflicting articles, but that wouldn’t cause them to be connected by topic, but rather by conflict.

Criticism of #2767