Search Ideas
2227 ideas match your query.:
If Veritula did implement articles, the first thing I’d want is the ability to criticize them; to submit deeply nested counter-criticisms; and to render a label showing how many pending criticisms an article has, calculated based on criticism chains.
I agree, and I think here you have inadvertently pointed at a key difference between discussions and articles. In terms of implementation, articles would be a near clone of discussions, except that the articles themselves can be criticised by users, including all the functionality that articles being criticisable may one day come with, like entire articles going dormant if they don’t answer criticisms within a certain period.
A couple of examples: If I wanted to keep and share information on Karl Popper, it would be a lot more intuitive to produce an article on him in encyclopedia style—where I can present information in a hierarchy, rather than creating a discussion and then making each detail about him a top-level idea, which is more chaotic. The same would be true if I wanted to make articles on CR terms—this doesn’t seem very natural to do in a Veritula discussion, but would be very natural in a series of Veritula articles, one for each term.
It also favours this articles idea that implementing it would be fairly straightforward, due to how much could be carried over from the discussions implementation. It makes it low cost to try.
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.
Done as of 4922b8c. The form now sticks to the bottom of the discussion page.
Yes, see here: https://veritula.com/discussions/veritula-meta
Give it a shot.
You may want to hit the bell icon for each discussion and at the top of the page listing all discussions. Then you’ll be notified of every activity on existing discussions, and of new discussions.
I think so. If Veritula did implement articles, the first thing I’d want is the ability to criticize them; to submit deeply nested counter-criticisms; and to render a label showing how many pending criticisms an article has, calculated based on criticism chains. Which is just what Veritula has already.
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.
While this is true for most existing discussions, it’s not a fundamental limitation of discussions in general. For example, ‘How Does Veritula Work?’ has several long-form posts without much discussion. It just depends on what kinds of posts people want to submit.
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.
Top-level ideas in a discussion thread are not standalone pages.
Every idea (including every top-level one) has a separate, linkable page. You can reach it by clicking the link starting with the # sign.
They can start a new discussion with as wide a topic as they want.
There could be a side pane that stays visible while scrolling content.
There could be a floating button on the side that takes you to the bottom of the page.
https://veritula.com/ideas?q=&nature=uncontroversial is down from 2988ms to 476. Growing db should now have marginal effect, if any.
Would ideas that no longer have pending criticisms (perhaps because the criticism chain has been flipped further down) be pulled out of the archive?
Users may wish to publish articles that don’t neatly fit into a discussion topic.
Top-level ideas need to be published to a specific discussion, which will cause some amount of silo-ing or similar dynamics.
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.
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).
‘Articles’ are functionally no different than top-level ideas in a discussion thread.
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.
It might make sense to have the new top-level idea form at the top, in the meantime. Compared to the current design, this would invite the creation of more top-level ideas.