Actually, it occurs to me that my previous comment makes the case that SI should have a single logical document, kept up to date, maintaining its current case. It doesn’t argue that it should be a wiki. One alternative would be to keep a book in revision control—there are doubtless others, but let me discuss this one.
Pros:
A book has a prescribed reading order; it may be easier to take in the content if you can begin at the beginning and work forwards. This is a huge advantage—I’d upload it to the Kindles of all my friends who have given me permission.
The book would be written in LaTeX, so it would be easier to convert parts of it to academic papers. MediaWiki format is the most awful unparseable dog’s breakfast; it seems a shame to use it to create content of lasting value.
Real revision control is utterly wonderful (eg hg, git) - what MediaWiki provides absolutely pales in comparison.
Real revision control makes it easier for outsiders to contribute without special permissions—they just send you patches, or invite you to pull from them.
Cons:
Mediawiki is easier to use
People are used to wikis
Wikis more naturally invite contribution
Wikis don’t need you to install or compile anything
Much of the content is more wiki-like than book-like—it’s not a core part of what SI are discussing but an aside about the work of others, and in a book it would probably go in an appendix.
It’s easier to have a bunch of hyperlinks in a wiki (be it to internal or external material)
A wiki’s comment page is a natural place to have a discussion; collaborative work on a book would also require a separate medium (Mailing list, LessWrong) for discussion
There are several relatively mature wiki engines beside mediawiki, with different markup languages etc. The low barrier of entry for wikis, even with less familiar markup languages is a very important consideration.
Actually, it occurs to me that my previous comment makes the case that SI should have a single logical document, kept up to date, maintaining its current case. It doesn’t argue that it should be a wiki. One alternative would be to keep a book in revision control—there are doubtless others, but let me discuss this one.
Pros:
A book has a prescribed reading order; it may be easier to take in the content if you can begin at the beginning and work forwards. This is a huge advantage—I’d upload it to the Kindles of all my friends who have given me permission.
The book would be written in LaTeX, so it would be easier to convert parts of it to academic papers. MediaWiki format is the most awful unparseable dog’s breakfast; it seems a shame to use it to create content of lasting value.
Real revision control is utterly wonderful (eg hg, git) - what MediaWiki provides absolutely pales in comparison.
Real revision control makes it easier for outsiders to contribute without special permissions—they just send you patches, or invite you to pull from them.
Cons:
Mediawiki is easier to use
People are used to wikis
Wikis more naturally invite contribution
Wikis don’t need you to install or compile anything
Much of the content is more wiki-like than book-like—it’s not a core part of what SI are discussing but an aside about the work of others, and in a book it would probably go in an appendix.
Other cons (advantages of Wiki):
It’s easier to have a bunch of hyperlinks in a wiki (be it to internal or external material)
A wiki’s comment page is a natural place to have a discussion; collaborative work on a book would also require a separate medium (Mailing list, LessWrong) for discussion
A wiki is indexed by search engines
You can link to a specific page of a wiki
There are several relatively mature wiki engines beside mediawiki, with different markup languages etc. The low barrier of entry for wikis, even with less familiar markup languages is a very important consideration.