Difference between revisions of "Talk:2-place and 1-place words"

From Lesswrongwiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(it's an empty stub of one blog post summary...)
 
(policy thoughts)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
This kind of stubs shouldn't be created. Nothing links to this page, it references only one blog post, so it's basically a summary article for that single blog post, and there is even no description. For now (with a rather weak "core" of the wiki and few contributors), even "summary" articles as you've done with [[No_one_knows_what_science_doesn't_know]], shouldn't be created, if there are not enough references to them (or none can be naturally created once article is written) -- they dilute the effort to improve the quality of other articles. One can as well link directly to the blog post instead of through the wiki summary. --[[User:Vladimir Nesov|Vladimir Nesov]] 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 
This kind of stubs shouldn't be created. Nothing links to this page, it references only one blog post, so it's basically a summary article for that single blog post, and there is even no description. For now (with a rather weak "core" of the wiki and few contributors), even "summary" articles as you've done with [[No_one_knows_what_science_doesn't_know]], shouldn't be created, if there are not enough references to them (or none can be naturally created once article is written) -- they dilute the effort to improve the quality of other articles. One can as well link directly to the blog post instead of through the wiki summary. --[[User:Vladimir Nesov|Vladimir Nesov]] 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 +
: I agree that in retrospect, it was silly of me to create an empty stub---I was planning to write content here and then got tied up in something else; sorry! I agree that it's not good to create frivolous wiki summaries of blog posts, but where I've created wiki articles named after a post (e.g., [[No one knows what science doesn't know]], [[No safe defense]]), it's because I thought that the articles described and named concepts with wide general applicability: for example, this point that "there's too ''much'' research for anyone to have a grasp of what we know and what we don't know" really is relevant in a lot of contexts. It's more akin to the [[Reality is normal]] page rather than, I don't know, some random page summarizing [http://lesswrong.com/lw/j2/explainworshipignore/ Explain/Worship/Ignore?] that shouldn't exist. ---[[User:Z. M. Davis|Z. M. Davis]] 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:07, 11 September 2009

This kind of stubs shouldn't be created. Nothing links to this page, it references only one blog post, so it's basically a summary article for that single blog post, and there is even no description. For now (with a rather weak "core" of the wiki and few contributors), even "summary" articles as you've done with No_one_knows_what_science_doesn't_know, shouldn't be created, if there are not enough references to them (or none can be naturally created once article is written) -- they dilute the effort to improve the quality of other articles. One can as well link directly to the blog post instead of through the wiki summary. --Vladimir Nesov 20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that in retrospect, it was silly of me to create an empty stub---I was planning to write content here and then got tied up in something else; sorry! I agree that it's not good to create frivolous wiki summaries of blog posts, but where I've created wiki articles named after a post (e.g., No one knows what science doesn't know, No safe defense), it's because I thought that the articles described and named concepts with wide general applicability: for example, this point that "there's too much research for anyone to have a grasp of what we know and what we don't know" really is relevant in a lot of contexts. It's more akin to the Reality is normal page rather than, I don't know, some random page summarizing Explain/Worship/Ignore? that shouldn't exist. ---Z. M. Davis 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)