As late as 2004, people were still working out how to write an encyclopedia from first principles. There was not sufficient popularity to provide feedback as to how Wikipedia was doing in terms of usefulness to ordinary people, and how, or even whether, this would be widely useful. People were still thinking in terms of using the website as raw material for a finished product, and that finished product would be the real point.
Around 2005 it hit the twenties in Alexa and my phone started ringing a lot …
Now? I see advertisements in Tube stations advertising something as “THE WIKIPEDIA OF …” I forget what it was. But this was a poster on the wall of a subway station advertising to the general populace. How did we get here?
And the key point is that Wikipedia didn’t have any particular outside feedback until it was already famous. Probably the first bit that really brought home that there was a real world out there was the Siegenthaler incident. Until then I think we really were flying more or less blind, while even internally the quality control was based on theoretical considerations of what an encyclopedia might look like, rather than anything the end readers were actually using it for or its effects in the world.
I’m not sure it’s actually useful to compare Wikipedia’s trajectory to LessWrong, I’m more wondering if there’s comparable ideas based on LessWrong having almost no outside feedback. RationalWiki really doesn’t count. We’re idiots (though eloquent ones) writing for our own amusement. But it will be interesting to see the effect of the Harry Potter fans coming in.
Has anyone compiled a timeline of LessWrong as yet?
And the key point is that Wikipedia didn’t have any particular outside feedback until it was already famous. Probably the first bit that really brought home that there was a real world out there was the Siegenthaler incident. Until then I think we really were flying more or less blind, while even internally the quality control was based on theoretical considerations of what an encyclopedia might look like, rather than anything the end readers were actually using it for or its effects in the world.
But what should that outside feedback have looked like? People talking about what they used Wikipedia for? I’m sure there was plenty of that on blogs. A committee of experts coming over and giving advice?
I can’t really imagine what kind of “outside feedback” would have changed Wikipedia’s trajectory—I don’t see what would have increased the “group rationality” of Wikipedia editors that they didn’t already have. Academics involved? check. People thinking hard about how to organize that thing? check. New people coming in with a new perspective? check.
Now, Wikipedia’s history could have varied with some internal changes—say policies on handling disputes, on anonymous editors, a clearer vision of Wikipedia “not as a scratch pad but as the final product”, etc. - but none of those seem more likely to be introduced by “outside feedback”.
Yeah, the idea of what I might be asking for is somewhat inchoate. I think I’m still shocked at Wikipedia getting a lot of outside feedback at all—actually becoming famous, then going beyond that to an assumed part of life. What? How on earth?
To bring it back to on-topicality, where is LessWrong now? It’s gaining participants slowly. What’s the aim? “Refine the art of human rationality.” How would that scale if readership doubled tomorrow? What would happen if LW got famous? How could that occur? What function would the site have?
As late as 2004, people were still working out how to write an encyclopedia from first principles. There was not sufficient popularity to provide feedback as to how Wikipedia was doing in terms of usefulness to ordinary people, and how, or even whether, this would be widely useful. People were still thinking in terms of using the website as raw material for a finished product, and that finished product would be the real point.
Around 2005 it hit the twenties in Alexa and my phone started ringing a lot …
Now? I see advertisements in Tube stations advertising something as “THE WIKIPEDIA OF …” I forget what it was. But this was a poster on the wall of a subway station advertising to the general populace. How did we get here?
And the key point is that Wikipedia didn’t have any particular outside feedback until it was already famous. Probably the first bit that really brought home that there was a real world out there was the Siegenthaler incident. Until then I think we really were flying more or less blind, while even internally the quality control was based on theoretical considerations of what an encyclopedia might look like, rather than anything the end readers were actually using it for or its effects in the world.
I’m not sure it’s actually useful to compare Wikipedia’s trajectory to LessWrong, I’m more wondering if there’s comparable ideas based on LessWrong having almost no outside feedback. RationalWiki really doesn’t count. We’re idiots (though eloquent ones) writing for our own amusement. But it will be interesting to see the effect of the Harry Potter fans coming in.
Has anyone compiled a timeline of LessWrong as yet?
But what should that outside feedback have looked like? People talking about what they used Wikipedia for? I’m sure there was plenty of that on blogs. A committee of experts coming over and giving advice?
I can’t really imagine what kind of “outside feedback” would have changed Wikipedia’s trajectory—I don’t see what would have increased the “group rationality” of Wikipedia editors that they didn’t already have. Academics involved? check. People thinking hard about how to organize that thing? check. New people coming in with a new perspective? check.
Now, Wikipedia’s history could have varied with some internal changes—say policies on handling disputes, on anonymous editors, a clearer vision of Wikipedia “not as a scratch pad but as the final product”, etc. - but none of those seem more likely to be introduced by “outside feedback”.
Yeah, the idea of what I might be asking for is somewhat inchoate. I think I’m still shocked at Wikipedia getting a lot of outside feedback at all—actually becoming famous, then going beyond that to an assumed part of life. What? How on earth?
To bring it back to on-topicality, where is LessWrong now? It’s gaining participants slowly. What’s the aim? “Refine the art of human rationality.” How would that scale if readership doubled tomorrow? What would happen if LW got famous? How could that occur? What function would the site have?