Hi, thanks for contributing to the wiki. I noticed you are making many words on the pages into links. The current notability guidelines, although far from well-articulated, state that wiki shouldn't duplicate content present elsewhere. Wiki is primarily for organizing the material discussed on the blog, and describing the concepts in the context of the blog, where linking to other sources directly would complicate matters or lose the context. --Vladimir Nesov 19:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please slow down. Don't add articles on obscure concepts, don't do original (to the blog) research. Even the probably valid references to the literature have to be removed because of epistemic hygiene if they can't be readily verified to be relevant. This wiki is for organizing the blog posts and concepts discussed in them. Case in point (I'll get to removing it once I review the backlog, a couple of weeks now): Tensegrity. --Vladimir Nesov 17:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. Yes, I am trying to organize and summarize a number of concepts which have been thoroughly hashed out already, either on the blog or at Overcomingbias.com. But I think there's nothing wrong with adding minor clarifications or extensions--that's an eminently suitable task for any sort of wiki. Users can always revert any disputed text or move it to talk, and any serious conflicts can be escalated to a blog comment or post.
- As for tensegrity, yes feel free to delete it. It was added as a dicdef, but I realize that the term is not directly relevant to human rationality. It can be confusing and having it here is probably unwarranted at this time. --Bogus 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
- Vladimir has correctly enunciated the wiki policy. Our version of notability is that nothing can be wikified until it has been blogged (and upvoted and promoted). --Eliezer Yudkowsky 02:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- PS: And you definitely can't create whole new categories, leave that to wiki admins.
- I think categories should be much more liberally created, right now they are mostly useless: either too broad, or too incomplete. Just look at the typical categorization on Wikipedia. The pressure to be too careful created by the "categories" page seems misguided (historically, that page resulted from refactoring of an older page that listed too many useless concepts). Anyway, wiki shouldn't write control over content in the rules, control is in the review process. --Vladimir Nesov 16:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- No, I think Eliezer is right here. The real problem is that the "categories" feature of mediawiki is commonly used both as a and as a tagging system/folksonomy. There are a lot of good things to be said about liberally created folksonomies, but confusing them with organized topic trees is a no no. --Bogus 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)