Archive:000/Wiki for a better world:Refactor

This wiki needs refactoring.

Hi, I'm Elie. I have a lot to say, but every time I try to say it, I see ten different ways my words could be misinterpereted.

Everything on this wiki, as of yet, is written by me. But most of it sucks. I don't mean that in a "poor me, I'm not good enough" kind of way. I mean it in a "this content doesn't say what I want it to say" kind of way.

I'm trying to get my ideas written down and organized in a way that people can...

1. understand
   • and not misunderstand
   • reach multiple target audiences, because different things need to be heard by different people (even though it's all linked together)
2. expand upon
   • I've been meaning to open this wiki for people to edit, post and comment. But first I have to get the structure right.

Language sucks. We need better notation.

I need to be able to express my ideas,

• in multiple levels of DETAIL
  • So far, at least, I think I got this part nailed down. Details can be presented in smaller text, light text, inline expandables, popup boxes, or separate pages.
  • Why it's important: Because the content should get to the point. No one likes walls of text! But the details still need to be there somewhere (without cluttering up the page)(...)( and without ruining the flow of the main point ).
    • The internet is full of content that does this wrong. Academic papers are full of nuance but take too long to navigate. When you're just looking for one specific piece of info, it can take way too long to skim through a 50-page paper just to see if it's even in there. We must do better. Even news articles don't get to the point these days - or when they do, the lack the nuance needed. There has to be a better compromise. The reader should be able to decide what details they need to see. Every reader has different interests and knowledge-gaps to fill. We need to preach to the noobs without preaching to the choir (but also teach the choir something new they need to know).

• in multiple levels of CERTAINTY
  • This is where my current content sucks. I have a lot to assert, but also a lot of questions to ask; and I have not been good at indicating which is which. I developed a habit of writing in confident language everywhere, just because it was a way to be concise. Then I became a slave to my own writing style: When I didn't know something, or wasn't sure about something, then I would either:
    • write down my hypothesis as if it's sure truth, pretend it is, because hey I can always go back and change/edit it later if i find new info that contradicts it, right? That's stupid. Readers shouldn't have to guess what's true and what's just a draft.
    • write down a bunch of scratch notes privately on my computer, about all the questions I need to answer and info I need to gather before I can write a confident post. That's stupid. I'm asking good questions that no one ever sees, and if I never get around to answering them well enough, then I post nothing after all that effort.
  • I need a new notation that can clearly distinguish between different levels of certainty, especially as I'm using them all together.
  • When I open up this wiki, there needs to be a way for one user to call for the gathering of info (i.e. ask an important question that's relevant to a particular research thread) in a way that someone else could fill in the answer later.

• in multiple levels of PRESENTNESS
  • I need to be able to speak about both the status quo, along with what could be (often with multiple "scenarios" that each would work differently). All of these go together in the same concept, so I need a clear notation to specify what's status quo and what's part of a scenario.

• with logical flow
  • i.e. "X is true, as explained on page A; therefore Y is true" (asserted on page B)
  • Things can get messy when one page is predicated on uncertain info on another page. As more info comes in, the downstream pages need to be updated too. I need a way to manage this, along with some clear concise notation to indicate if a statement is built on a shaky foundation (and perhaps some meta-commentary preparing some possible rephrasings for if the statement gets proven true or false).

• with "meta-commentary"
  • A meta-commentary on the above bullet points might be: After I refactor this wiki, I should really reuse the above bullet points as a general style guide/philosophy.
  • Meta-commentary can also relate to certainty level. Example: I can say my best guess and then put a commentary about what questions we need to answer in order to make a better resolution.
  • I'm thinking to keep meta-comments in a popup reachable beside the main text. Clickable would be a purple-pink comment icon, and the popup box background should be a different color from the usual info-popup box background.

• other stuff maybe
  • A "user-commentary" notation format would be helpful too, for when I need to use the word "I" to explain a point more efficiently (because often an "I"-less alternative phrasing ends up harder to understand, more ambiguous, too many third-person pronouns at once lead to confusion, and it comes across as over-formalized or even dystopian in some cases).

Next steps

I gotta

• decide on some notations
• start writing from scratch; start from Draft:Main page and branch out
• pull stuff in, from older pages as needed
• pull stuff in, from my private scratch notes on my laptop, once i have a good way to work it into the wiki
• move all my old old irrelevant pages to the Old: namespace
• ????
• open up the wiki

Stated differently: See subpage: /SMART goal

Comments

Got some ideas on any of this? Leave a comment below ↓

<comments />