4 ms·

I've been building an intuition that we can't just pick. We need all of them. Text: Chat -> Forums -> Wiki Video: Twitch -> YouTube -> Movies Voice: Discord

I've been building an intuition that we can't just pick. We need all of them. Text: Chat -> Forums -> Wiki Video: Twitch -> YouTube -> Movies Voice: Discord -> Podcasts -> Books on Tape? Which can be summarized as, in how long the information lasts: Media: 1 minute -> 1 day -> 1 year Left side is experimental for people who absolutely love the activity, right side is high quality and condensed for people who just want the information. As the right side has higher standards, it will be more correct but less up to date. On things that are rapidly evolving you might want to drop down to a lower level. What we need is for it to be as trivial as possible for the information that is happening in chats to make its way to forum posts in a cleaner format, and eventually into wikis where all experimentation has been refined into just truths. All of this needs to be open and so we can't have 9 different services all trying to hold their section hostage.

mch82 5y ago
I think you’re right. As information moves from idea to discussion to documentation, choose the right tool for the job. Chat systems like discord, or even an email list, are useful for ephemeral discussion and working things out. Once a concept stabilizes, move it to a wiki that is organized and edited to be a concise, focused document.
- ItsMonkk 5y ago
  Oh, thank you for giving me (idea, discussion, documentation), I love it. One of the key insights when you view the model this way is that people are always trying to avoid "filter bubbles", but it's actually totally okay to have filter bubbles in the idea stage, which should open up in the discussion stage, and should be totally gone by the documentation stage. So one chat community -> one wiki community doesn't make sense. You want sub-communities that can come together to groom the information as it matures.
  - mch82 5y ago
    Can you elaborate on the “filter bubbles” concept?
    - ItsMonkk 5y ago
      The wiki entry on it is fairly complete[0]. Another way to look at this is Breadth First Search vs Depth First Search. DFS moves fast and tries to find new ideas, BFS moves slow and makes sure it's taking the correct path. Think about Chess bots that need to go very far down the search space to make the next move. It's okay for the idea stage to be bubbly. It helps them come up with ideas. if the wiki stage is of all one mindset, you have an issue. Further thinking since I made this post, I realized when thinking through this model, no wonder why the internet is so toxic. Most people, the less experienced, who should be reading verified Wiki-level information are reading Facebook and similar, a Chat-level discourse. No wonder disinformation flows. Of course it makes sense why. Unverified stuff is simply more exciting than known stuff that's been filtered of all of the impossible stuff. How do we get most people to read boring wiki entries? Read textbooks? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
- OrvalWintermute 5y ago
  I do agree that is the right way to do it. Unfortunately, for a gaming organization it really brings to the fore the need for knowledge management, and discipline around what makes its way into the Forum, to a Sticky on the Forum, and from there, to the Wiki as Doctrine/Policy. Kind of comedy how much this needs to resemble RL organizations

mch82 5y ago

I think you’re right. As information moves from idea to discussion to documentation, choose the right tool for the job. Chat systems like discord, or even an email list, are useful for ephemeral discussion and working things out. Once a concept stabilizes, move it to a wiki that is organized and edited to be a concise, focused document.

ItsMonkk 5y ago
Oh, thank you for giving me (idea, discussion, documentation), I love it. One of the key insights when you view the model this way is that people are always trying to avoid "filter bubbles", but it's actually totally okay to have filter bubbles in the idea stage, which should open up in the discussion stage, and should be totally gone by the documentation stage. So one chat community -> one wiki community doesn't make sense. You want sub-communities that can come together to groom the information as it matures.
- mch82 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on the “filter bubbles” concept?
  - ItsMonkk 5y ago
    The wiki entry on it is fairly complete[0]. Another way to look at this is Breadth First Search vs Depth First Search. DFS moves fast and tries to find new ideas, BFS moves slow and makes sure it's taking the correct path. Think about Chess bots that need to go very far down the search space to make the next move. It's okay for the idea stage to be bubbly. It helps them come up with ideas. if the wiki stage is of all one mindset, you have an issue. Further thinking since I made this post, I realized when thinking through this model, no wonder why the internet is so toxic. Most people, the less experienced, who should be reading verified Wiki-level information are reading Facebook and similar, a Chat-level discourse. No wonder disinformation flows. Of course it makes sense why. Unverified stuff is simply more exciting than known stuff that's been filtered of all of the impossible stuff. How do we get most people to read boring wiki entries? Read textbooks? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filter_bubble
OrvalWintermute 5y ago
I do agree that is the right way to do it. Unfortunately, for a gaming organization it really brings to the fore the need for knowledge management, and discipline around what makes its way into the Forum, to a Sticky on the Forum, and from there, to the Wiki as Doctrine/Policy. Kind of comedy how much this needs to resemble RL organizations