Search Ideas
712 ideas match your query.:
‘Discussions’ are too narrow a term for a collection of ideas. See #2878.
While ideas should always be ‘discussable’, that doesn’t mean everyone who wants to share an idea always wants to start a discussion. Maybe they just want to put some information out there.
#2877 doesn’t mean you should put entire articles in the about section. (That’s still what top-level ideas are for.) It means that, if you’re willing to use the about section for that, then by your own logic there’s no need for this new feature.
If ‘discussions’ take on a broader form, like we have discussed up to #2880, would this change?
Maybe. It could depend on which term Veritula adopts.
What if a user wishes to express that they take issue with something written in the entry/topic body text? I suppose they would quote it in their top-level criticism.
Yes.
Maybe about sections should themselves be criticizable… In which case they’re just regular top-level ideas. So maybe I could just remove about sections for future discussions. I’ll mull it over.
This change is on purpose. The zoom feature was buggy. After zooming out far enough, the navbar and footer got cut off on the right. So I replaced it with proper scrolling.
Would you say zooming was indispensable or just nice to have?
The user could publish it as a separate independent idea, including a link to the idea they want to relate/refer to.
This is how relating discussions works currently. For instance, if I start a discussion on Bitcoin, I might want to connect it to the existing discussion on Zcash. At present, the only way to achieve this is by adding a link to the Zcash discussion within my new Bitcoin discussion.
I suspect you would agree with me that this approach to how discussions interact isn’t really an issue. I also think it wouldn’t be an issue for independently published ideas, for the same reasons.
Note: This has led me to the idea that links within Veritula could be bidirectional. Each idea could have an option to display all other ideas that refer to it. I will submit this as a top-level idea in this thread.
The new subscription system takes care of this.
Interview published today, with one of the founders of Wikipedia:
https://youtu.be/8-0vUZ0hTK4
He argues, like I do, that Wikipedia should allow multiple competing articles on each topic.
I partly agree with him on other problems he identifies, but unfortunately he doesn’t come at it from a Popperian angle.
This is a good idea.
I often receive criticisms that I have no counter-criticisms for, and it would be nice to be able to acknowledge those, both as a way to display gratitude, and as a way to indicate that I think something is tentatively settled.
Thank you for clarifying this. The idea of submitting a criticism and also immediately revising makes sense.
The criticisms you shared today (that inspired me to post #2884) are valid. This question came out of confusion as to how Veritula is intended to be used, rather than frustration directed at you.
The purpose of the reaction would be to record a kind of agreement or acknowledgment.
That way, Veritula could show ‘pending’ criticisms to users, say – ‘pending’ in the sense that they haven’t responded to those criticisms. So in addition to revising or counter-criticizing, they get a chance to accept a criticism without it remaining in a ‘pending’ state.
Posting arbitrary emojis doesn’t achieve that purpose.