Veritula – Meta

Showing only ideas leading to #6007.

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. You may need to scroll sideways.
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies​·​#2753​·​
2nd of 2 versions leading to #6007 (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.

Criticized2*
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies​·​#2751​·​

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

Criticism of #2753 Battle-tested
Benjamin Davies’s avatar
Benjamin Davies​·​#2752​·​

Top-level ideas in a discussion thread are not standalone pages.

One thing that Wikipedia does well is having a structured, high level page for each idea/subject. This enables readers to get a good sense of an idea quickly.

Right now, to get a good sense of an idea on Veritula, a user often has to study a branching discussion, which can take a lot of work depending on how the discussion played out. A discussion also emphasises things that were relevant to the disagreements that took place in the discussion, rather than distilling the most important elements of an idea into a hierarchy, regardless of disagreements that took place in getting to it (like an encyclopedia entry does).

Criticism of #2751Criticized1*
Michael Briffa’s avatar
Michael Briffa​·​#6007​·​

How I find myself using Veritula at the moment is looking at the latest developing threads. Catching up on the context of that thread through clicking “Activity” is not time-effective; it reminds me of trying to catch up with a group chat full of messages. Threads naturally become messy, and not all points serve to advance the problem (some can be misunderstandings or micro-corrections). For this reason, there should be some summary that considers the following as context:

  • The thread problem + metadata
  • The discussion points under that thread (considering different branches) that relate to the problem.
  • A prompt that aims at addressing “messiness” minimisation.

The summary should preserve substantive developments, competing answers and unresolved criticisms, while compressing resolved misunderstandings and linking back to the relevant posts.

If such a setup, including the summary, prompt and rules for what gets included, were kept open and criticiazable, we should arrive at a good system (so there should be a thread where we can iterate on ideas).

  • Rationally adoptable.
  • Not rationally adoptable.
  • Older versions with pending criticisms.
  • Ideas are blue, criticisms red, comments small and gray.
  • Hover over ideas to expand them.
  • Click on ideas to jump to their place in the discussion.