The way to get it up to scratch is to fix the problems yourself and lead by example, rather than to try to moderate contributions.
Yes, this would work, but the option is not available. I can’t do that, this is not sufficiently important for me. Working on decision theory is more important. (I believe you are currently not qualified to do that in the spirit of LW, and would drive the wiki in a wrong direction. It would become a non-LW wiki covering topics inspired by LW.) There are lots of people who are qualified, but they don’t work on the wiki.
You appear to me to be speaking from personal surmise; I’m speaking from experience in and observation of what generally works and what doesn’t.
I don’t believe we’ve yet pinpointed a single point of disagreement (that is, a single fact that we both understand but expect to have different properties). Advice you were giving had preconditions that aren’t met here.
If you think they’re not good enough, your options are (1) fix them yourself (2) kill the wiki.
If you put it like that, the only option available is to kill the wiki. I expect there are better third options.
Remember that wikis can’t possibly work—by which I mean they seem to jar human expectations—except they do.
I reject you appeal to mystical knowledge. I understand how wikis that work do so.
Is an highly imperfect and lumpy LW wiki better than no LW wiki?
It’s probably worse than the current LW wiki, which is in turn better than no LW wiki. The only reason to allow the current LW wiki to become imperfect and lumpy would be expectation that this step implements a process that eventually makes it better than it is currently. You need to make that case for this wiki.
Yes, this would work, but the option is not available. I can’t do that, this is not sufficiently important for me. Working on decision theory is more important. (I believe you are currently not qualified to do that in the spirit of LW, and would drive the wiki in a wrong direction. It would become a non-LW wiki covering topics inspired by LW.) There are lots of people who are qualified, but they don’t work on the wiki.
I tend to share your perspective. We definitely don’t want a mediocre wiki that doesn’t represent LW content. That would be worse than nothing. Moreover there are already other wikis around that can fill that niche. RationalWiki, perhaps?
While not ideal there it would not be a huge problem if the wiki was limited to a few pages like the sequence index and an expanded glossary. What is important is that we don’t have any content there that is not taken almost directly from unambiguously upvoted posts that were promoted on the front page. If there is anything there that isn’t just a summarized version of a post for the purpose of easy linking then it does not belong.
I believe you are currently not qualified to do that in the spirit of LW, and would drive the wiki in a wrong direction. It would become a non-LW wiki covering topics inspired by LW.
Then someone (if not you) needs to set out, in detail, what the desired vision for the wiki is. Because at present, it’s entirely unclear what you intend it to be useful for. Saying “no that’s not it, I don’t like that, try again” is not helpful.
There are lots of people who are qualified, but they don’t work on the wiki.
Do they care?
You’re making an argument toward shutting it down, as the wrong tool for the job (that you haven’t specified).
Is an highly imperfect and lumpy LW wiki better than no LW wiki?
It’s probably worse than the current LW wiki, which is in turn better than no LW wiki. The only reason to allow the current LW wiki to become imperfect and lumpy would be expectation that this step implements a process that eventually makes it better than it is currently.
Yes, that’s precisely what I’m saying: it will get worse as part of the process of getting to better.
You need to make that case for this wiki.
My case is that that’s how wikis work generally. As such, if you disagree, you need to say how this one would come to life by some other process (what that process is and preferably some examples to point to).
Then someone (if not you) needs to set out, in detail, what the desired vision for the wiki is. Because at present, it’s entirely unclear what you intend it to be useful for. Saying “no that’s not it, I don’t like that, try again” is not helpful.
I’m not sure what Vladimir’s vision is—and this is more or less his baby—but the wiki is most useful as a way to reduce inferential distance for newcomers by serving as a reference for jargon and cached thoughts.
It does not need to go into any detail. All significant content should be posted in the form of blog posts where it can (, will and probably already has been) be discussed in depth.
No lumps allowed! Sparsity and incompleteness are to be preferred to lumps. The wiki does not need to be complete. A standalone wiki cannot afford to be lacking in content. A LW wiki can. Because this is a blog, not a wiki. There is plenty of content here. If all the ‘wiki’ did was have a dozen pages with indexes and a few references then it would still be serving a purpose.
No lumps allowed! Sparsity and incompleteness are to be preferred to lumps.
I think that the big difference between David’s viewpoint and yours is that he views a wiki as a living, growing thing. The trouble with your slogans above is that they effectively become:
No lumps allowed ever! Perpetual sparsity and incompleteness are to be preferred to occasional and temporary lumps.
Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?
I think that the big difference between David’s viewpoint and yours is that he views a wiki as a living, growing thing.
Not really. I view it as a living thing with higher standards and without a willingness to sacrifice quality for growth.
The trouble with your slogans above is that they effectively become:
You are toeing a line here between inappropriate and disingenuous. Not only are my assertions of preference not slogans I was only reluctantly going along with David’s ‘lumps’ metaphor because there were more important things to criticize than an awkward description.
You then proceed to overtly misquote me, adding words that change the meaning to something I quite obviously did not intend. Following up with “Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?” just strikes the logical rudeness home.
occasional and temporary lumps.
Aside from not being what I referred to this does not accurately represent the kind of system that David was describing either.
Yes, this would work, but the option is not available. I can’t do that, this is not sufficiently important for me. Working on decision theory is more important. (I believe you are currently not qualified to do that in the spirit of LW, and would drive the wiki in a wrong direction. It would become a non-LW wiki covering topics inspired by LW.) There are lots of people who are qualified, but they don’t work on the wiki.
I don’t believe we’ve yet pinpointed a single point of disagreement (that is, a single fact that we both understand but expect to have different properties). Advice you were giving had preconditions that aren’t met here.
If you put it like that, the only option available is to kill the wiki. I expect there are better third options.
I reject you appeal to mystical knowledge. I understand how wikis that work do so.
It’s probably worse than the current LW wiki, which is in turn better than no LW wiki. The only reason to allow the current LW wiki to become imperfect and lumpy would be expectation that this step implements a process that eventually makes it better than it is currently. You need to make that case for this wiki.
I tend to share your perspective. We definitely don’t want a mediocre wiki that doesn’t represent LW content. That would be worse than nothing. Moreover there are already other wikis around that can fill that niche. RationalWiki, perhaps?
While not ideal there it would not be a huge problem if the wiki was limited to a few pages like the sequence index and an expanded glossary. What is important is that we don’t have any content there that is not taken almost directly from unambiguously upvoted posts that were promoted on the front page. If there is anything there that isn’t just a summarized version of a post for the purpose of easy linking then it does not belong.
Then someone (if not you) needs to set out, in detail, what the desired vision for the wiki is. Because at present, it’s entirely unclear what you intend it to be useful for. Saying “no that’s not it, I don’t like that, try again” is not helpful.
Do they care?
You’re making an argument toward shutting it down, as the wrong tool for the job (that you haven’t specified).
Yes, that’s precisely what I’m saying: it will get worse as part of the process of getting to better.
My case is that that’s how wikis work generally. As such, if you disagree, you need to say how this one would come to life by some other process (what that process is and preferably some examples to point to).
I’m not sure what Vladimir’s vision is—and this is more or less his baby—but the wiki is most useful as a way to reduce inferential distance for newcomers by serving as a reference for jargon and cached thoughts.
It does not need to go into any detail. All significant content should be posted in the form of blog posts where it can (, will and probably already has been) be discussed in depth.
No lumps allowed! Sparsity and incompleteness are to be preferred to lumps. The wiki does not need to be complete. A standalone wiki cannot afford to be lacking in content. A LW wiki can. Because this is a blog, not a wiki. There is plenty of content here. If all the ‘wiki’ did was have a dozen pages with indexes and a few references then it would still be serving a purpose.
I think that the big difference between David’s viewpoint and yours is that he views a wiki as a living, growing thing. The trouble with your slogans above is that they effectively become:
Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?
Not really. I view it as a living thing with higher standards and without a willingness to sacrifice quality for growth.
You are toeing a line here between inappropriate and disingenuous. Not only are my assertions of preference not slogans I was only reluctantly going along with David’s ‘lumps’ metaphor because there were more important things to criticize than an awkward description.
You then proceed to overtly misquote me, adding words that change the meaning to something I quite obviously did not intend. Following up with “Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?” just strikes the logical rudeness home.
Aside from not being what I referred to this does not accurately represent the kind of system that David was describing either.
No, actually it does. There will always be lumps, but any given lump will be temporary.