The thing is, I think Wikipedia beat you to the punch on this one. They may not be Yudkowskian, big-R Rationalists, but they are, broadly-speaking, rational. And they do an incredibly effective job of pooling, assessing, summarizing, and distributing the best available version of the truth already. Even people of marginal source-diligence can get a clear view of things from Wikipedia, because extensive arguments have already distilled what is clearly true, what is accepted, what is speculation, and what is on the fringe.
I encourage you to bring the clarity of thought taught in the Less Wrong community to Wikipedia by contributing.
That said, it would be pretty cool if they’d implement a karma-like system for Wikipedia contributors. It would make vandals, fools, trolls, noobs, editors in good standing, and heroic contributors easily recognizable.
Agreed, we shouldn’t duplicate anything that Wikipedia already does.
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general information and, explicitly, doesn’t want the role I am advocating here. While users try to expand the role of Wikipedia, the mediators want a narrower role for Wikipedia and would probably appreciate a complementary site for the purpose of analyzing information.
Wikipedia:
Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. from here
I would be open to petitioning for some kind of “WikiAnalysis” sister site, but that would do little for R-outreach (Is R-outreach something we are interested in?) and we’d be able to do it better.
It takes a lot of work (full article, with a developed story) and time (1-6 months for science peer review) to publish; it doesn’t come close to taking advantage of the efficiencies of networked community thought.
The thing is, I think Wikipedia beat you to the punch on this one. They may not be Yudkowskian, big-R Rationalists, but they are, broadly-speaking, rational. And they do an incredibly effective job of pooling, assessing, summarizing, and distributing the best available version of the truth already. Even people of marginal source-diligence can get a clear view of things from Wikipedia, because extensive arguments have already distilled what is clearly true, what is accepted, what is speculation, and what is on the fringe.
I encourage you to bring the clarity of thought taught in the Less Wrong community to Wikipedia by contributing.
That said, it would be pretty cool if they’d implement a karma-like system for Wikipedia contributors. It would make vandals, fools, trolls, noobs, editors in good standing, and heroic contributors easily recognizable.
Agreed, we shouldn’t duplicate anything that Wikipedia already does.
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general information and, explicitly, doesn’t want the role I am advocating here. While users try to expand the role of Wikipedia, the mediators want a narrower role for Wikipedia and would probably appreciate a complementary site for the purpose of analyzing information.
Wikipedia:
I would be open to petitioning for some kind of “WikiAnalysis” sister site, but that would do little for R-outreach (Is R-outreach something we are interested in?) and we’d be able to do it better.
Publish your original thought somewhere.
Get it referenced by “reputable sources”.
You may now republish it in Wikipedia!
It takes a lot of work (full article, with a developed story) and time (1-6 months for science peer review) to publish; it doesn’t come close to taking advantage of the efficiencies of networked community thought.
3a. Although if you do so, there is some risk that other Wikipedia editors will take exception and complain of conflict of interest.