= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
AnnaSalamon comments on What isn't the wiki for? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (25)
Why? Also, are you just suggesting different titles, or are you suggesting some larger change in the content I'd been imagining? I'd been picturing a starting-point page with general open questions, as noted, linking to combined {study guide / open questions} pages for each topic, that summarize progress to date (mainly by a list of relevant OB/LW articles and other resources, with a sentence of so description of how each fits into the topic) and remaining very specific issues to investigate.
I'm mostly concerned about conventions and broad structure, not content, at this point. I agree entirely with the content you have produced (at least as a rough draft, as you acknowledge). Content can be refined as we go, but I feel it's important to settle questions about overall structure early on.
For any particular topic, I'd like to see two paired articles:
This might seem like a bikeshed argument, but short names make it easier to search for a topic or link to it from memory. I also like the explicit link between the reference and teaching articles if reasonable pairs exist.
Is there another short description that would work better than "study guide"? I can think of "outline", just "guide", "syllabus", "open questions", "questions".
Does anyone else want to chime in on this? Ciphergoth?
I don't mind using short titles; your point about easy searching and linking makes sense I think.
I don't want the thing I was envisioning to be called a "study guide", though. Because I want the individual "study guide"-like pages to serve not only as a guide for newcomers but also as a summary of what we've produced so far as a community, and where the gaps in our analysis are. Your other suggestions don't really unite the purposes either. We could just do e.g. "Heuristics and biases, conversational style", but that doesn't indicate purpose the way "study guide" does and I don't much like the way it sounds. Maybe it would help if I understood what purpose or use-case you have in mind for the NPOV style articles, as a contrast class.
Yeah, I understand that. Is there a term you think would be fitting? "guide" is the best term I can think of. It also wouldn't have to be just two types of articles. We could have "topic", "topic study guide", and "topic open questions" or something similar. I think "open questions" still sounds a little awkward, but that's just quibbling if we can't think of anything better.
I'm still unconvinced of the merits of the whole plan, but several people seem interested and I'd be delighted to learn that I'm mistaken and good will come of it, so I'm just standing back and seeing what gets built.