Ask HN: Would anyone be interested in a Hacker News wiki?
I just saw this comment by pg: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1329415
I can understand pg's point of view on this. On the other hand though, I honestly wasn't aware of searchyc until I saw that thread. It seems to me that if pg won't make an official place to post links to things like that, there should be an unofficial place.
On the other hand, I can't really think of much else to put there other than a couple of iPhone apps and the link to searchyc. So is there enough content out there to justify a wiki?
14 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 42.4 ms ] threadNever really took off though.
Now, maybe if we asked pg to put a link... (oh, well never mind, it was only a joke).
But yes, that's a great thing to have around, one thing that springs to mind right away is a more expansive guide for newbies that we can point to when people are new, confused or both.
Heh :) I posted it once or twice - it got a rash of several additions and then quietened down, a bit too much for me to manually add in all the historical data sadly...
I'll happily add pages and bits and pieces if it's helpful (in a more HN specific way)... fire away with any suggestions.
- gems section (great stuff, not unlike 'bestcomments', but plenty of really great stuff never gets the votes it deserves) that will be a great resource in and of itself
- hints and tips
- a set of links to articles about YC start-ups, integrated on the page about that start-up
I had an idea a while ago, that this could be the primary interface for a social news site: instead of having new posts get voted on individually and appear without context, which then has to be added in the comments, you'd have "news threads" on certain topics (e.g. "the iPad" would be one thread.). You'd post an article to a thread (different from posting a comment—it would appear at the top with all the other articles under the thread's discussion) and it would get voted on, only allowed to "come under discussion" of the thread once it passed a certain threshold.
* The front page of the site would be threads sorted by aggregate score of their article posts, weighted by the time of their most recent contributed article (so posting a good link would bump the thread.)
* Articles could be submitted individually (into the "uncategorized" thread, I suppose) and then moved into threads by moderation (which would give moderators an opportunity to create a new thread when a discussion doesn't already have a place—a possible insertion point for spam otherwise.)
* Every thread comment would be in reply to both a user (with root-level comments being "to" the submitter) and an article within the thread. Comments would still be threaded, so someone could add a new article to "cite" their comment upon as evidence for/against someone else's comment on a previous article in the thread. Comments in cite of articles that hadn't passed the voting threshold would be greyed out.
* "Spam posts" and "advertisements" would simply be threads, able to rise to the top if something in them happens to merit it.
* A "best of" post is simply a post of one of the thread's comments as an article to the thread, and ties that comment's karma score to the thread's aggregate score (allowing threads that have brilliant discussion, but bad articles/links, to rise.)
Anyone want to steal/implement this?
It's not that I find presence of FAQs frustrating, but has more to do with how useful information contained in different discussions tend to get increasingly decentralized. Furthermore, depending on the topic, the nature of discussions might change as time progresses, and those who might want more "classic" advices on that topic could really benefit from this proposed style of wiki.
For example, "recommend materials for learning higher maths" type of questions keep appearing consistently. Each time there's a new discussion that contains unique advices. If I were to refer a newcomer to past discussions right at this moment, I could come up with at least 5 of them (which I have done in one of my comments few weeks ago). A HN Wiki that centralizes gems from different discussions in this situation would be highly beneficial, a time-saver for many.
I suppose alternatives are tagging and improved search functions which are common elsewhere, but a somewhat-active wiki community (whether official or unofficial) where people are willing to organize useful information would be just fantastic.