Ah, it’s in a different thread, didn’t notice (conversation started here). I don’t consider you unfit for editing the wiki, I consider you unfit for leading (or shaping, but leading is more actionable) an effort that brings a lot of new content to the wiki.
I don’t consider you unfit for editing the wiki, I consider you unfit for leading (or shaping, but leading is more actionable) an effort that brings a lot of new content to the wiki.
I am glad to see your wariness. I was getting a bad feeling when David_Gerard started presenting himself as a wiki authority—especially when it came to editing content. The one time I recall David referencing his wikipedia editing I was appalled by what he had done to the page. It actually lowered the extent to which I am willing to trust the content on wikipedia when it comes to pharmacology. The scary thing was that I would have taken it at face value if I had not already searched pubmed myself.
I have no doubt David has much to offer in terms of wiki management skills but the potential for a dominant influence over content creation specifically was scaring me. (Just not enough that I was willing to volunteer to work on the wiki myself. The wiki is not quite that much of a priority.)
And FWIW I agree with this—David, I’m glad to see you’ve brought your energy and smarts and Wiki-editing knowledge to the project, but I don’t think of you as an LW-style thinker.
I’m telling you stuff that is well known to work for bringing wikis to life, you’re telling me that looking to experience is cargo culting and that the LW wiki is a special case for reasons you aren’t stating. Someone is actually going to have to do stuff for it to work, and so far you’re not offering anything whatsoever, neither ideas nor actual participation. You’re treating me offering ideas on what has worked for other wikis as if it’s a threat. I submit that this is a problematic attitude which will leave your wiki as dead as it is—treating ideas first as threats is something lots of wikis have died of.
What is your vision of what the wiki is for? What forms of usefulness to people do you consider a good idea? I’m asking you to make positive statements of your own, rather than why other people’s ideas are bad.
As an aside, you are systematically not being technical when leading an argument. You are misrepresenting the discussion a lot and making other errors, like offering false dichotomies or appealing by connotation. This reduces the efficiency of communication, for example I left our conversation of the wiki unresolved for this reason.
Ah, it’s in a different thread, didn’t notice (conversation started here). I don’t consider you unfit for editing the wiki, I consider you unfit for leading (or shaping, but leading is more actionable) an effort that brings a lot of new content to the wiki.
I am glad to see your wariness. I was getting a bad feeling when David_Gerard started presenting himself as a wiki authority—especially when it came to editing content. The one time I recall David referencing his wikipedia editing I was appalled by what he had done to the page. It actually lowered the extent to which I am willing to trust the content on wikipedia when it comes to pharmacology. The scary thing was that I would have taken it at face value if I had not already searched pubmed myself.
I have no doubt David has much to offer in terms of wiki management skills but the potential for a dominant influence over content creation specifically was scaring me. (Just not enough that I was willing to volunteer to work on the wiki myself. The wiki is not quite that much of a priority.)
And FWIW I agree with this—David, I’m glad to see you’ve brought your energy and smarts and Wiki-editing knowledge to the project, but I don’t think of you as an LW-style thinker.
I’m telling you stuff that is well known to work for bringing wikis to life, you’re telling me that looking to experience is cargo culting and that the LW wiki is a special case for reasons you aren’t stating. Someone is actually going to have to do stuff for it to work, and so far you’re not offering anything whatsoever, neither ideas nor actual participation. You’re treating me offering ideas on what has worked for other wikis as if it’s a threat. I submit that this is a problematic attitude which will leave your wiki as dead as it is—treating ideas first as threats is something lots of wikis have died of.
What is your vision of what the wiki is for? What forms of usefulness to people do you consider a good idea? I’m asking you to make positive statements of your own, rather than why other people’s ideas are bad.
As an aside, you are systematically not being technical when leading an argument. You are misrepresenting the discussion a lot and making other errors, like offering false dichotomies or appealing by connotation. This reduces the efficiency of communication, for example I left our conversation of the wiki unresolved for this reason.