I’d personally find this helpful, and I expect others will, too. If I consider the FAQs I’m familiar with and imagine alternative documents that consist of the questions and the references, but without the answers, I feel that their value decreases by at least 50%. Most of the added value comes from the synthesis, but some comes from removing the trivial inconvenience of having to open multiple links and locating the relevant passage(s).
I was referring to the difference in value between a collection of references and a summary of the content of those references (as opposed to a mere collection of representative quotes).
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
I defer to you, since I am not familiar with this topic. My above assessment was “on priors”.
I’d personally find this helpful, and I expect others will, too. If I consider the FAQs I’m familiar with and imagine alternative documents that consist of the questions and the references, but without the answers, I feel that their value decreases by at least 50%. Most of the added value comes from the synthesis, but some comes from removing the trivial inconvenience of having to open multiple links and locating the relevant passage(s).
That’s helpful to know, thanks! I currently don’t have time for this, but (edit) might add quotes later.
Could you please clarify what you mean by this?
I was referring to the difference in value between a collection of references and a summary of the content of those references (as opposed to a mere collection of representative quotes).
Gotcha, so to be clear, you’re saying: it would be better for the current post to have the relevant quotes from the references, but it would be even better to have summaries of the explanations?
(I tend to think this is a topic where summaries are especially likely to lose some important nuance, but not confident.)
Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
I defer to you, since I am not familiar with this topic. My above assessment was “on priors”.