Using the wiki

the following is compiled from Chat Logs/2009-04-11:

• [14:07] IRC: jimrandomh: So it seems like the wiki should naturally be bipartite
• [14:08] IRC: MosaSaur: where is the current wiki?
• [14:09] IRC: PeerInfinity: http://lesswrong.wikia.com/wiki/LessWrong_Wiki
• [14:09] IRC: jimrandomh: I think that if we took the current OB and Less Wrong, and added even more links to them, they'd make a great wiki
• [14:09] IRC: vnesov: Or rather http://lesswrong.wikia.com
• [14:09] IRC: jimrandomh: Eliezer's posts have lots of links, but only to older articles. We could add links from old articles to new ones, and fill in links in other
• authors' articles
• [14:10] IRC: Eliezer: I've also been thinking about the wiki thing. It seems to me that we have an opportunity to do something new here, a blog+wiki format.
• [14:10] IRC: Infotropism: integrated; side by side ?
• [14:10] IRC: jimrandomh: In particular, the articles on biases are almost all older than the examples that refer to them, but they'd be much more useful if they had an
• appendix full of links to examples
• [14:11] IRC: Eliezer: Wiki articles are short. For any extended discussions they link to blog posts. It's a general rule that blog posts don't go in the Wiki. Wikis
• name concepts, give quick summaries, possibly link to a few other Wiki articles, and mostly link to blog posts.
• [14:11] IRC: PeerInfinity: (side-topic: acceleratingfuture.com is experimenting with a blog+forum+wiki format)
• [14:11] IRC: vnesov: When someone wants to reference an old article, it is an opportunity to add a little bit to an existing wiki article, and link to it.
• [14:11] IRC: Eliezer: Blog posts link ubiquitously to Wiki pages. Every instance of "epistemic rationality" for example would get wikified.
• [14:11] IRC: vnesov: I suggest encouraging linking to wiki, as opposed to the older articles.
• [14:12] IRC: Eliezer: This would be my shot at making LW as addictive as TVTropes.
• [14:12] IRC: Grey_Fox: so, so addictive
• [14:12] IRC: Grey_Fox: what's the magic formula of TVTropes?
• [14:13] IRC: vnesov: Wiki pages should give summaries, then extended summaries, and then they grow into the full-length articles.
• [14:13] IRC: Eliezer: the ubiquitous linkage and the interaction between jumping from trope to show to trope
• [14:13] IRC: saturnnn: Grey_Fox, huge amounts of interlinked content I'd say
• [14:13] IRC: jimrandomh: TVTropes has just enough content that whenever you read an article, you'll always find links to something you haven't seen before
• [14:13] IRC: Grey_Fox: yeah
• [14:13] IRC: Grey_Fox: plus the humour
• [14:14] IRC: EnglishGent: hmmm... what about wikipedia - doesn't that have huge amounts of interlinked material?
• [14:14] IRC: Grey_Fox: or at least some sort of sense that there are real people writing
• [14:14] IRC: LeopoldTal: IAWYC but linking to everything in the wiki from so much material would create inertia as changes in the wiki would create discrepancies
• between the new version and the blog posts/comments about the old version.
• [14:14] IRC: rwallace: "the interaction between jumping from trope to show to trope" is critical
• [14:14] IRC: Grey_Fox: EnglishGent: well, wikipedia isn't as addictive as tvtropes
• [14:14] IRC: Grey_Fox: or for that matter, the c2 wiki
• [14:14] IRC: Xuenay: http://xkcd.com/214/
• [14:14] IRC: saturnnn: some people find wikipedia addictive, the dry style puts a damper on it though
• [14:14] IRC: rwallace: in other words, examples matter
• [14:14] IRC: EnglishGent: surely that is a matter of perspective Grey_Fox?
• [14:15] IRC: jimrandomh: How about if instead of a separate wiki, we make the blog more wiki-like
• [14:15] IRC: Grey_Fox: I agree wikipedia is an invaluable resource
• [14:15] IRC: jimrandomh: in particular, article authors should have the ability to allow future authors to modify their posts
• [14:15] IRC: LeopoldTal: Examples don't matter that much - I can't stop reading TVTropes but if I shouldn't waste much time I can skip the examples.
• [14:15] IRC: Grey_Fox: but I've never spent hours at a time getting lost in its comforting folds
• [14:15] IRC: EnglishGent feels that the xkcd Xuenay linked to illustrates the problem nicely
• [14:15] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, due to limited development resources that would be a far-Future update.
• [14:16] IRC: saturnnn: i would guess the number of links per word is more than an order of magnitude lower on wikipedia
• [14:16] IRC: Eliezer: At least if we want Wikiian change control.
• [14:16] IRC: steven0461: I like the stream of consciousness style of the original C2 wiki
• [14:16] IRC: rwallace: Hmm. Different tastes, then. For me, tvtropes would be dust-dry without the examples.
• [14:16] IRC: jimrandomh: Otherwise, we have to duplicate just about everything between the blog and the wiki
• [14:17] IRC: jimrandomh: the only reason it seems like there's content to put in the wiki that isn't also on the blog, is because of all the old OB blog content that
• needs to be adapted
• [14:17] IRC: vnesov: No, blog posts should be personal, but what stable concepts they introduce/develop should be gradually integrated in the wiki format.
• [14:17] IRC: Grey_Fox: so, I suppose an isomorphic dynamic would be technique/fallacy to domain to technique
• [14:17] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, the idea is that blogs are for long articles. Each time the article uses a concept, it links back to the Wiki. Someone going to the Wiki
• finds a quick definition of the concept (possibly with some more internal links) and more importantly a sequence-ish list of blog posts with quick summaries.
• [14:17] IRC: LeopoldTal: More tree-ish than sequence-ish.
• [14:18] IRC: Grey_Fox: a linked tree maybe
• [14:18] IRC: Eliezer: Even if we have editable blog posts this can still imply a different dynamic - because of the idea that when you have original content to
• contribute, you write a blog post, and substantial user discussions are visible there.
• [14:18] IRC: Grey_Fox: Eliezer: do you think we should have a reference of the more pedestrian fallacies?
• [14:19] IRC: Eliezer: Linking ubiquitously from the blog to the Wiki is new-user-friendlier than linking directly to blog posts because the Wiki provides a quick
• summary and the index.
• [14:19] IRC: Xuenay: Eliezer's idea sounds good to me
• [14:19] IRC: vnesov: Blog posts are more short-term and less stable than wiki articles.
• [14:19] IRC: rwallace: Yeah.
• [14:19] IRC: Eliezer: Grey: On this theory, if you want to write up a fallacy, you would start by writing a blog post. If it got voted up enough, or if anyone else
• wanted to reference the concept in the blog post, they would create a Wiki page that summarizes the concept and links to your blog post.
• [14:19] IRC: jimrandomh: How about links in the other direction - from the wiki to blog posts
• [14:19] IRC: vnesov: A wiki article is a stable concept, than can be gradually elaborated with whatever details get sorted out.
• [14:19] IRC: PeerInfinity: random idea: a script to automatically update the blog pages, so that every time a concept is mentioned that has a corresponding page on the
• wiki, a link is created to the wiki?
• [14:20] IRC: jimrandomh: For working through an example, blog posts work better than wikis
• [14:20] IRC: rwallace: jim - I think that is a very good idea
• [14:20] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, in the other direction, this is a different solution than needing it to all be consensus voting everything; instead you write your own blog
• posts.
• [14:20] IRC: jimrandomh: so maybe, blog posts have lots of links into the wiki, wiki articles have a main section with lots of links that only go to wiki articles, and
• wiki articles have an 'examples' section at the bottom which contains only links to blog posts
• [14:20] IRC: LeopoldTal: jimrandomh: All/the main blog posts (comments?) mentioning the concept the article is about get linked, with their structure if they're a
• sequence.
• [14:20] IRC: Grey_Fox: Eliezer: so, new pages are first vetted through the blog
• [14:20] IRC: Eliezer: No, I'm proposing that blogging is a more efficient way of creating detailed discussions than Wiki'ing.
• [14:21] IRC: vnesov: A blog may present controversial assertions, opening a debate; a wiki article should state stable facts.
• [14:21] IRC: Grey_Fox: and then a summary of the concepts is posted on the wiki for posterity
• [14:21] IRC: Grey_Fox: oh I see
• [14:21] IRC: saturnnn: perhaps each blog post should have a wikiable summary section where new links can be added even when the post is old
• [14:21] IRC: vnesov: PeerInfinity: I've never seen this idea about automatic linking work out non-horribly.
• [14:22] IRC: jimrandomh: You're right about wikis being more stable/better for stable things than blogs, and blogs being better for discussion. I think it's mainly
• because people approach blogs with articles sorted by date.
• [14:22] IRC: Eliezer: Saturn, I would propose that instead the Wiki entry for that concept (not the particular blog post) should be wikiable (of course) and have new
• links added.
• [14:22] IRC: Grey_Fox: just trying to get the dynamic here
• [14:22] IRC: PeerInfinity: ok then, not entirely automatic, but a script to speed up the process of manually making the links?
• [14:22] IRC: Eliezer: Wiki for concepts and summaries, posts for theses and discussions. Each format doing what they do best.
• [14:22] IRC: PeerInfinity: by the way, here's a good example of tree structure for wiki content: http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/wiki/index.php?title=All_Topics
• [14:22] IRC: Grey_Fox: alright
• [14:23] IRC: jimrandomh: Ok, sounds like we agree on the distinction between what goes in the blog vs. what goes on the wiki
• [14:23] IRC: PeerInfinity: (I was planning to integrate the Less Wrong wiki content into the Accelerating Future wiki, by the way)
• [14:23] IRC: vnesov: Wiki articles about existing content are of course vetted through the talk pages of those articles, blog is for pushing new content.
• [14:23] IRC: Eliezer: Peer, by "integrate" do you mean copy or link?
• [14:23] IRC: jimrandomh: It would be nice to have a good way of adding links to new wiki articles on old blog posts, particularly if the wiki is going to have a lot of
• links to blog posts, but that's not essential
• [14:24] IRC: Eliezer: Jim: I agree, the thing to consider is that for now development resources are highly limited.
• [14:24] IRC: saturnnn: Eliezer, i meant that once i finished reading the blog post, at the bottom there would be the relevant wiki content... rather than having to
• click on it to see it
• [14:25] IRC: saturnnn: this is assuming the wiki content is very short
• [14:25] IRC: Eliezer: Saturn: But a post may belong to more than one concept.
• [14:25] IRC: PeerInfinity: by integrate, I meant either transclude or link
• [14:25] IRC: stillflame: process note: we've spent 15 minutes on this topic.
• [14:26] IRC: jimrandomh: Are we all happy with the wiki's software/hosting/etc?
• [14:26] IRC: Grey_Fox: so, long stuff goes in the blogs, the wiki is for summaries and concepts
• [14:26] IRC: Grey_Fox: links to concepts should link to the wiki
• [14:27] IRC: jimrandomh: Minor note: the front page needs a prominent link to the wiki
• [14:27] IRC: Grey_Fox: the concepts page should link to relevant posts on the concept
• [14:27] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, we're scheduled to get a MediaWiki (same format) integrated into lesswrong.com, don't know when that's scheduled to go live.
• [14:27] IRC: vnesov: It would be neat to get the wiki installed somewhere without advertising.
• [14:27] IRC: Eliezer: vnesov, see above
• [14:27] IRC: jimrandomh: Will the software change preserve content added before then?
• [14:27] IRC: vnesov: right
• [14:27] IRC: PeerInfinity <3 wikis :)
• [14:28] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, that is my understanding.
• [14:28] IRC: jimrandomh: Anything else to say about the wiki before moving on to the next topic?
• [14:28] IRC: MichaelGR: what about licensing? will Less Wrong wiki's be creative commons or GPL? If it is compatible with wikipedia's license, we could use some of thei
• content to build on (when appropriate)
• [14:28] IRC: vnesov: From the point of view of the wiki, blog posts should have the same status as the rest of the Internet.
• [14:28] IRC: dfranke: GPL makes no sense for !(code).
• [14:29] IRC: PeerInfinity: should I ask Michael Anissimov if he would agree to hosting the wiki on acceleratingfuture.com?
• [14:29] IRC: saturnnn: maybe you meand GFDL
• [14:29] IRC: vnesov: Wiki should prefer to link to itself, and blog posters should prefer to link to the wiki.
• [14:29] IRC: Eliezer: No. We are hosting it at lesswrong.com.
• [14:29] IRC: PeerInfinity: ok
• [14:29] IRC: MichaelGR: dfranke: I meant GFDL, or whatever wikipedia use(d)
• [14:29] IRC: dfranke: MichaelGR: wikipedia uses CC.
• [14:29] IRC: Eliezer: Both blogs and wikis should prefer to link to the wiki for *concepts* and to the blog for *discussions*.
• [14:29] IRC: MichaelGR: dfranke: Glad they made the switch. thx
• [14:30] IRC: KajSotala: (Might as well go by a name most people will recognize...)
• [14:30] IRC: Evercat: I don't believe Wikipedia has switched to CC yet
• [14:30] IRC: KajSotala: (Even if this feels weird)
• [14:30] IRC: vnesov: How do you link to discussion? Old discussions are generally dead.
• [14:30] IRC: jimrandomh: I don't think Wikipedia is capable of changing its licensing at this point
• [14:30] IRC: LeopoldTal: Much-linked-to discussions won't necessarily stay dead.
• [14:30] IRC: michaelblume: vnesov: We have recent comments linked from the front page
• [14:31] IRC: jimrandomh: Better distinction: link to the wiki for rationality terms, the blog for examples and outside applications
• [14:31] IRC: vnesov: You *create* blog posts to start discussions, but also to introduce concepts new to the community.
• [14:31] IRC: Roland_LW: It would be interesting to have discussions like the wikipedia "talk" pages
• [14:31] IRC: Eliezer: Vnesov, by "discussion" I mean a previously existing extended discourse upon a particular topic, including the presentation of a long thesis with
• support and its discussion in the comments. This should be a blog post, and if you want to link to it you should link to the blog.
• [14:31] IRC: dfranke: MichaelGR: ah nm, looks like GFDL is still the default.
• [14:31] IRC: MichaelGR: Roland_LW: If mediawiki is used, I think we'll get Talk pages by default
• [14:32] IRC: Grey_Fox: so, about licensing
• [14:32] IRC: vnesov: Eliezer: but the conclusions from any discussion should be integrated into wiki articles, so that there would be no point in actually *reading* the
• old discussion. Any new part of the discussion can start anew, in the global namespace.
• [14:32] IRC: Grey_Fox: is CC fine?
• [14:32] IRC: Eliezer: For so long as Wikis don't support threaded comments with *voting*, they can't do what the current LW blog does. And conversely, so long as the
• LW reddit-software doesn't support multiple editors with change control and comments linked to the version that they originally commented on, it can't do what the
• Wiki does.
• [14:33] IRC: PeerInfinity: yes, MediaWiki has Talk pages by default, but we don't necessarily need to use them
• [14:33] IRC: michaelblume: Grey_Fox: I'm pretty sure CC and GPL are interoperable these days
• [14:33] IRC: saturnnn: it would be cool if the talk pages could be replaced by the reddit-style comment threads... i assume that's way too much work to be worth it
• [14:33] IRC: stillflame: would we point to a irc for "active discussion"? does that usually amount to newbies reasking questions that eventually get put into a faq?
• [14:33] IRC: Grey_Fox: k
• [14:33] IRC: michaelblume: I usually use CC for my own writing
• [14:33] IRC: vnesov: Yes, doing the wiki article talk bages LessWrong-style would be an improvement.
• [14:33] IRC: vnesov: But it should be a separate sevice from the blog.
• [14:34] IRC: Roland_LW: Eliezer, you mentioned voting, I'm starting quesitoning the usefulness of this feature
• [14:34] IRC: Eliezer: Vnesov, to the extent that conclusions are short and can be summarized and don't sound stupid without their attached support, they can appear in
• the wiki's brief concept descriptions. But this does not obsolete the page which contains the support and the criticisms and the replies.
• [14:34] IRC: PeerInfinity makes a note to check if there is a MediaWiki extension to do threaded comments with voting...
• [14:34] IRC: michaelblume: Vnesov, Eliezer it seems it would be useful to still include a link to the original discussion in which the conclusions were linked
• [14:34] IRC: Grey_Fox: we could just put the lesswrong irc channel link somewhere on the site
• [14:35] IRC: Eliezer: saturnn, if you've got enough money you can always *pay* for work to get done... but in the absence of OSS volunteers, that's the issue basically.
• [14:35] IRC: jimrandomh: Wiki talk pages should only be for discussing presention issues. For discussion about content, it makes more sense to post on Less Wrong where
• people will see it
• [14:35] IRC: jimrandomh: On the blog, that is
• [14:35] IRC: Grey_Fox: yeah
• [14:35] IRC: vnesov: Of course, everything is archived, whenever it's necessary blog can be linked to. I think it would be rarely used (how often do we link to
• *discussions* now?)
• [14:35] IRC: michaelblume: jimrandom: agreed
• [14:35] IRC: Eliezer: Vnesov, you appear to believe that we should wiki everything possible. Why? Wikis have a different tone than blog discussions. I see that this
• is good for some things, but not all things.
• [14:36] IRC: LeopoldTal: If we have interesting findings, they will be nonobvious (i.e. sound stupid), we must be OK with crazy-sounding summaries or find a way to do
• without summaries.
• [14:36] IRC: vnesov: michaelblume: yes, that may be a good idea, to link in the footnotes.
• [14:37] IRC: Eliezer: Also, you seem to assume an authoritative knowledge structure in which a definite right answer is known (a la most of Wikipedia). Even when LW
• agrees on something, the primary usefulness to newbies is not being *told* what we think but of having the issue *explained*.
• [14:37] IRC: vnesov: jimrandomh: sounds good, any substantial discussion should turn into full-fledged blog discussion, so there is no need for fancy talk pages.
• [14:37] IRC: saturnnn: LeopoldTal, we can write the summaries in a neutral style rather than argumentative style
• [14:37] IRC: dfranke: I think the wiki should be used for 1. conclusions we almost all agree on, 2. defining jargon, 3. explaining standard positions in long-running debates.
• [14:37] IRC: MichaelGR: talk pages might still be useful for more housekeeping discussions about wiki pages that don't necessarily deserve blog posts
• [14:38] IRC: Eliezer: "The following was argued in such-and-such a blog post using this primary argument" (3 line summary)
• [14:38] IRC: Roland_LW: Vnesov: talk pages have more structure(at least those in wikipedia)
• [14:38] IRC: vnesov: Eliezer: no, everything should be *potentially* wikified, but the stub articles with a few-words summary and link to a blog post should be OK for
• the most stuff.
• [14:38] IRC: Eliezer: MGR, agreed
• [14:38] IRC: jimrandomh: How about if wiki articles start with a list of links to detailed explanations, followed by a link-laden but useless to newcomers summary,
• followed by a list of links to examples?
• [14:38] IRC: Roland_LW: What I wanted to say is: the blog discussions tend to big and unstructured so it becomes hard to find the relevant information
• [14:38] IRC: Eliezer: Vnesov, what do you mean "potentially wikified"?
• [14:38] IRC: saturnnn: I think the wiki shoud be used for making it easy to explore old blog posts that are still really interesting but currently hard to wander across
• [14:39] IRC: vnesov: Eliezer: wiki may list multiple points of view, and link to different posts and discussions where the controversy is a topic.
• [14:39] IRC: dfranke: Talk pages should be *exclusively* housekeeping discussions. They break down if you try to use them for anything else.
• [14:39] IRC: stillflame: (...didn't i read something recently about talking not being about info...)
• [14:39] IRC: vnesov: dfranke: right.
• [14:39] IRC: LeopoldTal: saturnnn: That's the problem! "A diet that tries to make you lose weight by drinking oil" is neutral and sounds crazy - explaining Roberts'
• theory is argumentative, sounds true and is way too long.
• [14:40] IRC: dfranke: ongoing debate needs to be on the blog and nowhere else, until it's gone on long enough for "standard positions" to be established, at which point
• they can be documented on the wiki.
• [14:40] IRC: Eliezer: Documented, but not necessarily argued, unless the argument is short.
• [14:40] IRC: saturnnn: LeopoldTal, how about "A diet that tries to make you lose weight by exploiting flavor-calorie association"
• [14:41] IRC: vnesov: Eliezer: I mean that an article starts as a few-words summary, and may grow to include most of the content in some blog post, but not word-by-word.
• [14:41] IRC: dfranke: I think the Shangri-La posts are a perfect example of what doesn't belong on the wiki.
• [14:41] IRC: Eliezer: "Used to illustrate issues of _akrasia, _willpower, and _individual_variation in what works for someone."
• [14:41] IRC: Eliezer: where the underlined are other wiki links
• [14:42] IRC: dfranke: pages about jargon can link to them as examples, but they shouldn't have their own article.
• [14:42] IRC: Eliezer: dfranke, but maybe I want to refer to Shangri-La in passing in the future. So I link to Shangri-La the Wiki article and then it gives a quick
• summary and refers back to the blog posts (with one-sentence summaries of their relevance)
• [14:42] IRC: Yvain: I think the best place for the Shangri-La posts on the wiki would be in the article on akrasia, unless lots of other posters start using Shangri-La
• as an example to the point where new readers of LW would probably wonder what this Shangri-La thing was.
• [14:42] IRC: vnesov: For example, if a standard position on a portion of an old blog post explaining a concept gets changed, the corresponding wiki article should
• introduce that part explicitly and describe the changes (or updated position).
• [14:43] IRC: Eliezer: dfranke, I don't understand the reason for that policy - quickly defining unfamiliar concepts would seem to be a *primary* use of a Wiki
• [14:43] IRC: MichaelGR: wiki is not paper, so there could be a stub about shangri la on the wiki, but it would probably have a lot less inbound links than other more
• reference pages
• [14:43] IRC: stillflame: process note: we're at 35 minutes for the topic of the wiki.
• [14:43] IRC: taw: i'm actually quite curious why shangri la diet has any appeal to you guys
• [14:43] IRC: saturnnn: I'm pretty sure I remember a lot of discussion of Shangri-La on OB a while back, too
• [14:43] IRC: taw: it has absolutely zero research behind it
• [14:44] IRC: taw: and they seem to be research-hostile
• [14:44] IRC: jimrandomh: Fake Wiki page that shows how I think they should be structured: http://pastebin.com/m5a6acbe9
• [14:44] IRC: taw: even atkins etc. are more research friendly than that
• [14:44] IRC: jimrandomh: All three of the diet-related posts used diets as examples to get at other, rationality related topics
• [14:45] IRC: jimrandomh: It's only the comments that talked about dieting directly
• [14:45] IRC: saturnnn: taw, I think the interest is more in the person who created it rather than it being such a wonderful thing per se.
• [14:45] IRC: Eliezer: Jim, I'd suggest putting the summary above the links - that's user-friendlier.
• [14:45] IRC: dfranke: Eliezer: Shangri-La is not a working concept that we're likely to reuse. The concepts are akrasia or individual variation.
• [14:46] IRC: dfranke: Eliezer: those things should have wiki articles, but if you want to link about Shangri-La, just link to the blog posts.
• [14:46] IRC: jimrandomh: The idea behind putting the Explanations section before the summary section was that if the topic is unfamiliar, you should read an
• article-length explanation first, before going click-happy
• [14:46] IRC: Eliezer: Dfranke, that's a testable hypothesis, and if I want to refer to Shangri-La in a future post, I could just create the Wiki article at that time.
• [14:46] IRC: Eliezer: Df: why?
• [14:47] IRC: dfranke: Eliezer: sure, if the idea gets reused regularly, then it gets a wiki page.
• [14:47] IRC: Eliezer: Jim: It seems to me that what the user *wants* is a fast explanation. Throwing links at them is just some valueless, inexplicable resource until
• they know what the concept is *about*.
• [14:47] IRC: vnesov: So, who writes an article discussing the suggested wiki-blog roles?
• [14:47] IRC: dfranke: Eliezer: but right now it's just something that's been brought up in passing.
• [14:47] IRC: Eliezer: df: why not if it gets reused *once*?
• [14:48] IRC: PeerInfinity hopes that dfranke won't be given permission to delete pages from the wiki...
• [14:49] IRC: jimrandomh: I yield to Eliezer on putting the summary block before the Explanations links
• [14:49] IRC: Eliezer: Yes, we shall definitely be avoiding deletinionism except for the most egregious cases of irrelevance or original research.  :)
• [14:49] IRC: jimrandomh: Anything more to say about wikis? I think we've pretty much covered it
• [14:49] IRC: LeopoldTal: What's wrong with original research?
• [14:49] IRC: Eliezer: it goes in a blog post
• [14:49] IRC: LeopoldTal: Right.
• [14:49] IRC: vnesov: Right, linking to posts such as http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/07/the-meaning-of.html is just useless, too much info.
• [14:50] IRC: dfranke: Eliezer: actually... I could see using Wiki pages for sequences, that are just a list of links with one-line summaries.
• [14:50] IRC: Eliezer: dfranke: yes - although I'd wanted to see sequences with Prev/Next clickthroughs the Wiki sounds like a more important feature
• [14:50] IRC: PeerInfinity: another topic suggestion: IRC chatlogs - do we want to post them online?
• [14:50] IRC: Eliezer: (to be implemented first)
• [14:51] IRC: Eliezer: Peer: sounds fine to me, anyone object?
• [14:51] IRC: jimrandomh: I agree that they should be posted