I’d like to stay away from making pages corresponding directly to those questions though. “What specific biases or error patterns interfere with accurate belief-formation?” should just be called “Cognitive Biases”.
Why? Also, are you just suggesting different titles, or are you suggesting some larger change in the content I’d been imagining? I’d been picturing a starting-point page with general open questions, as noted, linking to combined {study guide / open questions} pages for each topic, that summarize progress to date (mainly by a list of relevant OB/LW articles and other resources, with a sentence of so description of how each fits into the topic) and remaining very specific issues to investigate.
I’m mostly concerned about conventions and broad structure, not content, at this point. I agree entirely with the content you have produced (at least as a rough draft, as you acknowledge). Content can be refined as we go, but I feel it’s important to settle questions about overall structure early on.
For any particular topic, I’d like to see two paired articles:
“topic name” with a short description, references to Wikipedia, standard sources, and a straight list of related OB/LW articles, written in NPOV
“topic name study guide” with content like what you have done, written in a conversational tone
This might seem like a bikeshed argument, but short names make it easier to search for a topic or link to it from memory. I also like the explicit link between the reference and teaching articles if reasonable pairs exist.
Is there another short description that would work better than “study guide”? I can think of “outline”, just “guide”, “syllabus”, “open questions”, “questions”.
Does anyone else want to chime in on this? Ciphergoth?
I’m still unconvinced of the merits of the whole plan, but several people seem interested and I’d be delighted to learn that I’m mistaken and good will come of it, so I’m just standing back and seeing what gets built.
I don’t mind using short titles; your point about easy searching and linking makes sense I think.
I don’t want the thing I was envisioning to be called a “study guide”, though. Because I want the individual “study guide”-like pages to serve not only as a guide for newcomers but also as a summary of what we’ve produced so far as a community, and where the gaps in our analysis are. Your other suggestions don’t really unite the purposes either. We could just do e.g. “Heuristics and biases, conversational style”, but that doesn’t indicate purpose the way “study guide” does and I don’t much like the way it sounds. Maybe it would help if I understood what purpose or use-case you have in mind for the NPOV style articles, as a contrast class.
Yeah, I understand that. Is there a term you think would be fitting? “guide” is the best term I can think of. It also wouldn’t have to be just two types of articles. We could have “topic”, “topic study guide”, and “topic open questions” or something similar. I think “open questions” still sounds a little awkward, but that’s just quibbling if we can’t think of anything better.
Why? Also, are you just suggesting different titles, or are you suggesting some larger change in the content I’d been imagining? I’d been picturing a starting-point page with general open questions, as noted, linking to combined {study guide / open questions} pages for each topic, that summarize progress to date (mainly by a list of relevant OB/LW articles and other resources, with a sentence of so description of how each fits into the topic) and remaining very specific issues to investigate.
I’m mostly concerned about conventions and broad structure, not content, at this point. I agree entirely with the content you have produced (at least as a rough draft, as you acknowledge). Content can be refined as we go, but I feel it’s important to settle questions about overall structure early on.
For any particular topic, I’d like to see two paired articles:
“topic name” with a short description, references to Wikipedia, standard sources, and a straight list of related OB/LW articles, written in NPOV
“topic name study guide” with content like what you have done, written in a conversational tone
This might seem like a bikeshed argument, but short names make it easier to search for a topic or link to it from memory. I also like the explicit link between the reference and teaching articles if reasonable pairs exist.
Is there another short description that would work better than “study guide”? I can think of “outline”, just “guide”, “syllabus”, “open questions”, “questions”.
Does anyone else want to chime in on this? Ciphergoth?
I’m still unconvinced of the merits of the whole plan, but several people seem interested and I’d be delighted to learn that I’m mistaken and good will come of it, so I’m just standing back and seeing what gets built.
I don’t mind using short titles; your point about easy searching and linking makes sense I think.
I don’t want the thing I was envisioning to be called a “study guide”, though. Because I want the individual “study guide”-like pages to serve not only as a guide for newcomers but also as a summary of what we’ve produced so far as a community, and where the gaps in our analysis are. Your other suggestions don’t really unite the purposes either. We could just do e.g. “Heuristics and biases, conversational style”, but that doesn’t indicate purpose the way “study guide” does and I don’t much like the way it sounds. Maybe it would help if I understood what purpose or use-case you have in mind for the NPOV style articles, as a contrast class.
Yeah, I understand that. Is there a term you think would be fitting? “guide” is the best term I can think of. It also wouldn’t have to be just two types of articles. We could have “topic”, “topic study guide”, and “topic open questions” or something similar. I think “open questions” still sounds a little awkward, but that’s just quibbling if we can’t think of anything better.