Standard software-development question: what use cases and activities are you seeing now, and what do you want? Are they different in kind, or just quantity?
For me, it’s not features (as far as I know) that are lacking, it’s missing a well-defined purpose that it serves. Why does LW have a wiki, and what should be there, rather than in other, more authoritative locations?
When I reference LW contents, it’s almost always posts I find and use, though sometimes a wiki page summarizes a sequence or topic better than any one post does, and I really appreciate when that’s the case. I kind of wonder, though, if topics important enough to curate a page for shouldn’t go on Wikipedia rather than LessWrong.
My use case is either good and short summaries with some useful links, or as a tag (to share the list of tagged posts), or both.
Also another reason I might prefer the LW wiki explanation to somewhere else’s explanation is to have the LW style and lingo (which Wikipedia for example wouldn’t have).
I think I would like a page for “the LessWrong consensus on parenting, AI forecasting, janas” I don’t think wikipedia would take what I consider to be good sources on those topics.
That could be a really useful direction to approach this: what topics would you like to see, and what is keeping you from creating/editing that page? The great thing about wikis is that a page doesn’t need to be perfect, just a reasonable first-pass, and if others are interested, they’ll help improve it.
I’m not sure I’d frame it as “consensus”, so much as “LessWrong thoughts on...” or just “TopicName”. The thoughts and ideas are the important part, not whether or how much agreement there is.
On LessWrong we lack a philosophy about how to get to consensus.
Audrey Tang seems to have created a great system for creating documents that describe a consensus. Having a system that works like what Audrey Tang build might be a way to come to a consensus view on topics like that.
Standard software-development question: what use cases and activities are you seeing now, and what do you want? Are they different in kind, or just quantity?
For me, it’s not features (as far as I know) that are lacking, it’s missing a well-defined purpose that it serves. Why does LW have a wiki, and what should be there, rather than in other, more authoritative locations?
When I reference LW contents, it’s almost always posts I find and use, though sometimes a wiki page summarizes a sequence or topic better than any one post does, and I really appreciate when that’s the case. I kind of wonder, though, if topics important enough to curate a page for shouldn’t go on Wikipedia rather than LessWrong.
My use case is either good and short summaries with some useful links, or as a tag (to share the list of tagged posts), or both.
Also another reason I might prefer the LW wiki explanation to somewhere else’s explanation is to have the LW style and lingo (which Wikipedia for example wouldn’t have).
I think I would like a page for “the LessWrong consensus on parenting, AI forecasting, janas” I don’t think wikipedia would take what I consider to be good sources on those topics.
That could be a really useful direction to approach this: what topics would you like to see, and what is keeping you from creating/editing that page? The great thing about wikis is that a page doesn’t need to be perfect, just a reasonable first-pass, and if others are interested, they’ll help improve it.
I’m not sure I’d frame it as “consensus”, so much as “LessWrong thoughts on...” or just “TopicName”. The thoughts and ideas are the important part, not whether or how much agreement there is.
I’ve created a number of those pages, but it’s kind of a slog and noone else helps. Currrently it feels like it’s just me doing it.
That leads to think of some features that might help: karma/thank-you pages for editors is one possibility.
I don’t want thanks, I want colleagues. If I sensed that others were working alongside me, that would be enough.
Thanks for the discourse here though, you are good at this.
On LessWrong we lack a philosophy about how to get to consensus.
Audrey Tang seems to have created a great system for creating documents that describe a consensus. Having a system that works like what Audrey Tang build might be a way to come to a consensus view on topics like that.