Yeah, I see potential for this to be useful even if no-one uses it who isn’t already familiar with the content: just structuring and categorising the information allows us to be clearer about which questions we can and can’t answer, and be more aware of our conceptual gaps or weak points. I see that as a really useful and underrated clarifying tool, and I’m excited to see it develop further.
If the structuring and organizing of the content is a big part of its added value, that can be hard to preserve in a wiki or forum, which are often chaotic by nature. There’s probably a trade-off between
curation of content, particularly ensuring that content meets overarching goals and broad organizational principles, avoids duplication, self-contradiction, etc.
quantity and depth of content, responsiveness to changes and developments, representation of a range of perspectives, and some sense of community-wide legitimacy
Broadly speaking, I’d guess that getting more people involved hurts (1) and helps (2). We already have a forum and a wiki, so maybe (2) is better served by existing resources, and your comparative advantage is (1). But I’m open-minded about the possibility that you can find a way to manage the tradeoff and maintain the structure despite an open contribution model.
Yeah, I see potential for this to be useful even if no-one uses it who isn’t already familiar with the content: just structuring and categorising the information allows us to be clearer about which questions we can and can’t answer, and be more aware of our conceptual gaps or weak points. I see that as a really useful and underrated clarifying tool, and I’m excited to see it develop further.
If the structuring and organizing of the content is a big part of its added value, that can be hard to preserve in a wiki or forum, which are often chaotic by nature. There’s probably a trade-off between
curation of content, particularly ensuring that content meets overarching goals and broad organizational principles, avoids duplication, self-contradiction, etc.
quantity and depth of content, responsiveness to changes and developments, representation of a range of perspectives, and some sense of community-wide legitimacy
Broadly speaking, I’d guess that getting more people involved hurts (1) and helps (2). We already have a forum and a wiki, so maybe (2) is better served by existing resources, and your comparative advantage is (1). But I’m open-minded about the possibility that you can find a way to manage the tradeoff and maintain the structure despite an open contribution model.