A sister project that might be worth considering is to create a Stack Overflow type question-and-answer website as a companion for the wiki. (1, 2, open source clones.)
Potential benefits:
Iron out confusing, unclear, or poorly supported points in the wiki as they are brought up as questions.
This sort of question-and-answer platform could be a good way to hear from a wider variety of perspectives. A natural reaction of a visitor to the wiki might be “where are those who disagree”? If successful, a question-and-answer site could attract dissenters.
By soliciting input from random Internet users, you might see them correctly find flaws in your arguments or contribute useful insights.
Save even more time explaining things with your searchable question-and-answer database. (It’s likely that the software would encourage users to search for their question before asking it.)
I suspect this question-and-answer model works so well for reason. Don’t be surprised if wiki editors find answering questions enjoyable or addictive.
Potential harms:
Could hurt scholarly atmosphere.
Could incentivize users to respond quickly when they should be contemplating carefully instead.
Some other thoughts: wiki talk pages could potentially be eliminated or replaced by questions like “how can we improve the page on so-and-so”? Discussion on AI risk topics could potentially be moved off Less Wrong and onto this site.
This sounds like a great idea to me!
A sister project that might be worth considering is to create a Stack Overflow type question-and-answer website as a companion for the wiki. (1, 2, open source clones.)
Potential benefits:
Iron out confusing, unclear, or poorly supported points in the wiki as they are brought up as questions.
This sort of question-and-answer platform could be a good way to hear from a wider variety of perspectives. A natural reaction of a visitor to the wiki might be “where are those who disagree”? If successful, a question-and-answer site could attract dissenters.
By soliciting input from random Internet users, you might see them correctly find flaws in your arguments or contribute useful insights.
Save even more time explaining things with your searchable question-and-answer database. (It’s likely that the software would encourage users to search for their question before asking it.)
I suspect this question-and-answer model works so well for reason. Don’t be surprised if wiki editors find answering questions enjoyable or addictive.
Potential harms:
Could hurt scholarly atmosphere.
Could incentivize users to respond quickly when they should be contemplating carefully instead.
Some other thoughts: wiki talk pages could potentially be eliminated or replaced by questions like “how can we improve the page on so-and-so”? Discussion on AI risk topics could potentially be moved off Less Wrong and onto this site.