One suggestion: Iād want the epistemic spot checks, or something similar, to be mandatory. Many interesting books fail the basic test of āis the author routinely saying true things?ā, and I think a good truth-oriented book review should check for that.
I think that this may make sense /ā probably makes sense for receiving payment for book reviews. But I think Iād be opposed to discouraging people from just posting book summaries/āreviews/ānotes in general unless they do this.
This is because I think itās possible to create useful book notes posts in only ~30 mins of extra time on top of the time one spends reading the book and making Anki cards anyway (assuming someone is making Anki cards as they read, which Iād suggest they do). (That time includes writing key takeaways from memory or adapting them from rough notes, copying the cards into the editor and formatting them, etc.) Given that, I think itās worthwhile for me to make such posts. But even doubling that time might make it no longer worthwhile, given how stretched my time is.
Me doing an epistemic spot check would also be useful for me anyway, but I donāt think useful enough to justify the time, relative to focusing on my main projects whenever Iām at a computer, listening to books while I do chores etc., and churning out very quick notes posts when I finish.
All that said, I think highlighting the idea of doing epistemic spot checks, and highlighting why itās useful, would be good. And Michael2019 and MichaelEarly2020 probably shouldāve done such epistemic spot checks and included them in book notes posts (as at that point I knew less and my time was less stretched), as probably should various other people. And maybe I should still do it now for the books that are especially relevant to my main projects.
I think that this may make sense /ā probably makes sense for receiving payment for book reviews. But I think Iād be opposed to discouraging people from just posting book summaries/āreviews/ānotes in general unless they do this.
Yep, agreed. If someone is creating e.g. an EAIF-funded book review, I want it to feel very āsolidā, like I can really trust what theyāre saying and what the author is saying.
But I also want Forum users to feel comfortable writing less time-intensive content (like your book notes). Thatās why we encourage epistemic statuses, have Shortform as an option, etc.
(Though it helps if, even for a shorter set of notes, someone can add a note about their process. As an example: āCopying over the most interesting bits and my immediate impressions. I havenāt fact-checked anything, looked for other perspectives, etc.ā)
Yeah, I entirely agree, and your comment makes me realise that, although I make my process fairly obvious in my posts, I should probably in future add almost the exact sentences āI havenāt fact-checked anything, looked for other perspectives, etc.ā, just to make that extra explicit. (I didnāt interpret your comment as directed at my posts specificallyāIām just reporting a useful takeaway for me personally.)
I think that this may make sense /ā probably makes sense for receiving payment for book reviews. But I think Iād be opposed to discouraging people from just posting book summaries/āreviews/ānotes in general unless they do this.
This is because I think itās possible to create useful book notes posts in only ~30 mins of extra time on top of the time one spends reading the book and making Anki cards anyway (assuming someone is making Anki cards as they read, which Iād suggest they do). (That time includes writing key takeaways from memory or adapting them from rough notes, copying the cards into the editor and formatting them, etc.) Given that, I think itās worthwhile for me to make such posts. But even doubling that time might make it no longer worthwhile, given how stretched my time is.
Me doing an epistemic spot check would also be useful for me anyway, but I donāt think useful enough to justify the time, relative to focusing on my main projects whenever Iām at a computer, listening to books while I do chores etc., and churning out very quick notes posts when I finish.
All that said, I think highlighting the idea of doing epistemic spot checks, and highlighting why itās useful, would be good. And Michael2019 and MichaelEarly2020 probably shouldāve done such epistemic spot checks and included them in book notes posts (as at that point I knew less and my time was less stretched), as probably should various other people. And maybe I should still do it now for the books that are especially relevant to my main projects.
Yep, agreed. If someone is creating e.g. an EAIF-funded book review, I want it to feel very āsolidā, like I can really trust what theyāre saying and what the author is saying.
But I also want Forum users to feel comfortable writing less time-intensive content (like your book notes). Thatās why we encourage epistemic statuses, have Shortform as an option, etc.
(Though it helps if, even for a shorter set of notes, someone can add a note about their process. As an example: āCopying over the most interesting bits and my immediate impressions. I havenāt fact-checked anything, looked for other perspectives, etc.ā)
Yeah, I entirely agree, and your comment makes me realise that, although I make my process fairly obvious in my posts, I should probably in future add almost the exact sentences āI havenāt fact-checked anything, looked for other perspectives, etc.ā, just to make that extra explicit. (I didnāt interpret your comment as directed at my posts specificallyāIām just reporting a useful takeaway for me personally.)
I wonder if thereās something in between these two points:
they could check the most important 1-3 claims the author makes.
they could include the kind of evidence and links for all claims that are made so readers can quickly check themselves