But typically, interest in consumption represents weak evidence of willingness to pay for a good!
That depends on the business model. In the model in which the Wikis you linked to exist, they are not funded primarily because of interest in consumption. They are funded because of the belief that it’s a valuable target for EA donations.
I’m not aware of a Wiki where a majority of the content is paid and that’s not funded because of altruistic motives.
I’m having trouble keeping track of the central objection. First, it was you won’t be able to filter out bad content --> I’m not aware of platforms that use invite-only --> I’m not aware of platforms that use invite only AND pay people for non-altruistic content. Anyway, it would be too curt to just say “Have you tried thinking for five minutes first?” so I’ll try to explain my perspective. :)
There are vast numbers of websites filled with people writing content about various things. This website is even one of them. If people think this website is an interesting concept, then it would be more productive to search over the space of possible site designs and see if one makes sense. I agree that most immediate solutions that come to mind don’t seem viable, but that’s typical of new ideas.
Anyway, it would be too curt to just say “Have you tried thinking for five minutes first?” so I’ll briefly add one more point.
I think you seriously underrate the amount I spent thinking about how to make Wiki systems work. I have been involved in policy making in multiple Wiki projects.
I did get an in person explanation from Issa about how their system works a while back in a lot more then 5 minutes. I don’t think it’s applicable here.
Wiki is a quite general term. It’s both a term about technology and one about a way to interact together.
You said at the same time “I think the main reason why people post on wikis is that they find it fun, or satisfying in some way, rather than the reach it gets.” and spoke about Vipul’s Wikis when those simply don’t work that way.
That depends on the business model. In the model in which the Wikis you linked to exist, they are not funded primarily because of interest in consumption. They are funded because of the belief that it’s a valuable target for EA donations.
I’m not aware of a Wiki where a majority of the content is paid and that’s not funded because of altruistic motives.
I’m having trouble keeping track of the central objection. First, it was you won’t be able to filter out bad content --> I’m not aware of platforms that use invite-only --> I’m not aware of platforms that use invite only AND pay people for non-altruistic content. Anyway, it would be too curt to just say “Have you tried thinking for five minutes first?” so I’ll try to explain my perspective. :)
There are vast numbers of websites filled with people writing content about various things. This website is even one of them. If people think this website is an interesting concept, then it would be more productive to search over the space of possible site designs and see if one makes sense. I agree that most immediate solutions that come to mind don’t seem viable, but that’s typical of new ideas.
I think you seriously underrate the amount I spent thinking about how to make Wiki systems work. I have been involved in policy making in multiple Wiki projects.
I did get an in person explanation from Issa about how their system works a while back in a lot more then 5 minutes. I don’t think it’s applicable here.
Yeah, that’s reasonable. FWIW I meant “think for five minutes about the specific objection” rather than “think for five minutes about wiki systems.”
Wiki is a quite general term. It’s both a term about technology and one about a way to interact together.
You said at the same time “I think the main reason why people post on wikis is that they find it fun, or satisfying in some way, rather than the reach it gets.” and spoke about Vipul’s Wikis when those simply don’t work that way.