Feature request: author-driven collaborative editing [CITATION needed] for the Good and Glorious Epistemic Commons.
Often I find myself writing claims which would ideally have citations but I don’t know an exact reference, don’t remember where I read it, or am simply too lazy to do the literature search.
This is bad for scholarship is a rationalist virtue. Proper citation is key to preserving and growing the epistemic commons.
It would be awesome if my lazyness were rewarded by giving me the option to add a [CITATION needed] that others could then suggest (push) a citation, link or short remark which the author (me) could then accept. The contribution of the citator is acknowledged of course. [even better would be if there was some central database that would track citations & links like with crosslinking etc like wikipedia]
a sort hybrid vigor of Community Notes and Wikipedia if you will. but It’s collaborative, not adversarial*
author: blablablabla
sky is blue [citation Needed]
blabblabla
intrepid bibliographer: (push) [1] “I went outside and the sky was blue”, Letters to the Empirical Review
*community notes on twitter has been a universally lauded concept when it first launched. We are already seeing it being abused unfortunately, often used for unreplyable cheap dunks. I still think it’s a good addition to twitter but it does show how difficult it is to create shared agreed-upon epistemics in an adverserial setting.
Feature request: author-driven collaborative editing [CITATION needed] for the Good and Glorious Epistemic Commons.
Often I find myself writing claims which would ideally have citations but I don’t know an exact reference, don’t remember where I read it, or am simply too lazy to do the literature search.
This is bad for scholarship is a rationalist virtue. Proper citation is key to preserving and growing the epistemic commons.
It would be awesome if my lazyness were rewarded by giving me the option to add a [CITATION needed] that others could then suggest (push) a citation, link or short remark which the author (me) could then accept. The contribution of the citator is acknowledged of course. [even better would be if there was some central database that would track citations & links like with crosslinking etc like wikipedia]
a sort hybrid vigor of Community Notes and Wikipedia if you will. but It’s collaborative, not adversarial*
author: blablablabla
sky is blue [citation Needed]
blabblabla
intrepid bibliographer: (push) [1] “I went outside and the sky was blue”, Letters to the Empirical Review
*community notes on twitter has been a universally lauded concept when it first launched. We are already seeing it being abused unfortunately, often used for unreplyable cheap dunks. I still think it’s a good addition to twitter but it does show how difficult it is to create shared agreed-upon epistemics in an adverserial setting.