Is there some way I can see all the posts I upvoted in 2018 so I can figure out which I think are worthy of nomination?
Compiling the results into a physical book. I find there’s something… literally weighty about having your work in printed form. And because it’s much harder to edit books than blogposts, the printing gives authors an extra incentive to clean up their past work or improve the pedagogy.
Physical books are also often read in a different mental mode, with a longer attention span, etc. You could also sell it as a Kindle book to get the same effect. Smashwords is a service that lets you upload a book once and sell it on many different platforms.
The end of the review process includes a straightforward vote on which posts seem (in retrospect), useful, and which seem “epistemically sound”. This is not the end of the conversation about which posts are making true claims that carve reality at it’s joints, but my hope is for it to ground that discussion in a clearer group-epistemic state.
Is the idea to only include in the review those posts which are almost universally regarded as “epistemically sound”?
Is there some way I can see all the posts I upvoted in 2018 so I can figure out which I think are worthy of nomination?
Not currently – I agree that’d be a good feature, although there’s probably a few other comparably good features worth building to improve the nomination UI experience and not sure if I’d get to them all this year.
Is the idea to only include in the review those posts which are almost universally regarded as “epistemically sound”?
I’m not sure exactly, but I’d at least want clearer epistemic flags on things. (I can imagine a case where there are some posts that seem clearly important, but still have some questionable claims, and the author hasn’t have time to update them. In that case, one option might be to include the work as-is, but follow it up with some commentary, either from a reviewer during the Review Phase or by one of the moderation team member).
Is there some way I can see all the posts I upvoted in 2018 so I can figure out which I think are worthy of nomination?
Physical books are also often read in a different mental mode, with a longer attention span, etc. You could also sell it as a Kindle book to get the same effect. Smashwords is a service that lets you upload a book once and sell it on many different platforms.
Is the idea to only include in the review those posts which are almost universally regarded as “epistemically sound”?
Not currently – I agree that’d be a good feature, although there’s probably a few other comparably good features worth building to improve the nomination UI experience and not sure if I’d get to them all this year.
I’m not sure exactly, but I’d at least want clearer epistemic flags on things. (I can imagine a case where there are some posts that seem clearly important, but still have some questionable claims, and the author hasn’t have time to update them. In that case, one option might be to include the work as-is, but follow it up with some commentary, either from a reviewer during the Review Phase or by one of the moderation team member).