5 ms·

> I'm quite curious if there is a group of like-minded individuals out there who would participate in a wiki that attempts to summarize (with degree of certaint

by _fs 5y ago

> I'm quite curious if there is a group of like-minded individuals out there who would participate in a wiki that attempts to summarize (with degree of certainty) the current known knowledge. Yes, it can be found at a http://wikipedia.org http://wikipedia.org

renewiltord 5y ago
I'm actually a long-term contributor to Wikipedia (in my 14th year) and, as you can imagine, therefore a huge fan. However, Wikipedia does not attempt a synthesis of knowledge, preferring to be a repeater of what is publicly currently believed to be knowledge. i.e. if CNN, the WSJ, and the NYT report X is Y, that will count a lot more about X being Y than X actually being Y. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and it definitely partly scratches this itch, and I appreciate your sharing it, but I am looking for something that occupies a slightly different space.
- fernmyth 5y ago
  I have never measured the speed of light myself. But Google and Wolfram Alpha agree with my memory of physics lectures and textbooks. All of our epistemology is based on testimony. And in the degenerate but common case where the credibility of the source isn't considered, our epistemology devolves into memes. If Wikipedians apply consistent effort towards reconciling contradictory information in favor of seeking out better* sources, then that makes it as robust a system as we know how to make. *I don't know how to define "better" or "credible"
  - DubiousPusher 5y ago
    It may be based on testimony but this does not mean there is no metric for quality. There are tools which can help hint to us about the quality of some information: double blind controlled trials, reproduction, systemic reviews, longitudinal studies, published pre-study methodology, multiple lines of evidence. And some are considered as better than others. For example, a double blind controlled experiment is considered more indicitive of causal effect than an observational study. Which is still better than a self reported survey. I don't think it's entirely a bad idea. It would be hard because it would be an elitist endeavor. As in, criteria and protocol would have to be established by a small group ahead of time rather than democratically. Such institutions are vulnerable to capture or stagnation. But they can be really useful while they are true to their mission.
  - renewiltord 5y ago
    In my experience, Wikipedia covers emerging phenomena incompletely. It’s also bad at a question like “Is coffee bad for me?”. I’m not saying Wikipedia is good. It’s just not what I’m looking for here.

by _fs 5y ago

renewiltord 5y ago

I'm actually a long-term contributor to Wikipedia (in my 14th year) and, as you can imagine, therefore a huge fan. However, Wikipedia does not attempt a synthesis of knowledge, preferring to be a repeater of what is publicly currently believed to be knowledge. i.e. if CNN, the WSJ, and the NYT report X is Y, that will count a lot more about X being Y than X actually being Y. Wikipedia is a wonderful resource and it definitely partly scratches this itch, and I appreciate your sharing it, but I am looking for something that occupies a slightly different space.

fernmyth 5y ago
I have never measured the speed of light myself. But Google and Wolfram Alpha agree with my memory of physics lectures and textbooks. All of our epistemology is based on testimony. And in the degenerate but common case where the credibility of the source isn't considered, our epistemology devolves into memes. If Wikipedians apply consistent effort towards reconciling contradictory information in favor of seeking out better* sources, then that makes it as robust a system as we know how to make. *I don't know how to define "better" or "credible"
- DubiousPusher 5y ago
  It may be based on testimony but this does not mean there is no metric for quality. There are tools which can help hint to us about the quality of some information: double blind controlled trials, reproduction, systemic reviews, longitudinal studies, published pre-study methodology, multiple lines of evidence. And some are considered as better than others. For example, a double blind controlled experiment is considered more indicitive of causal effect than an observational study. Which is still better than a self reported survey. I don't think it's entirely a bad idea. It would be hard because it would be an elitist endeavor. As in, criteria and protocol would have to be established by a small group ahead of time rather than democratically. Such institutions are vulnerable to capture or stagnation. But they can be really useful while they are true to their mission.
- renewiltord 5y ago
  In my experience, Wikipedia covers emerging phenomena incompletely. It’s also bad at a question like “Is coffee bad for me?”. I’m not saying Wikipedia is good. It’s just not what I’m looking for here.