I was expecting people to be confused, so I’m glad you asked. It’s currently a slightly messy situation while we still figure out some design decisions and  possibly build a few missing pieces. 

• The only wiki pages right now are those which have been imported. You can find them all on this page. [? · GW]
• Right now, both tags and wikis are implemented as Tags, except some of them have a flag that deactivates the tag-specific features and so makes it a pure wiki page. Only admins can set this flag right now.
• Wiki-only pages currently do not appear on the Concepts page. There are too many for it currently,  we will have to change somehow.
• Currently, users cannot create new wiki pages. We will change that, but there are still some details to be decided on how to actually best go about. For now, you can make tag pages and we’ll change them to be wiki-only if that makes more sense (and ping us you want to bring to our attention that a tag should be a wiki).
• eventually, wiki pages will be findable in search and in other parts of the site.

Overall, the design we’ve ended up with combines tags and wiki pages as almost the same thing, except tags can be applied to posts. We’ve considered the name “twiki“.

While we’re not done building the system, it’s a bit messy. It still seemed good to import the old wiki at this point though. Hopefully we’ll get everything else to a not confusing state soon.

It was indeed I who went through most of the old wiki pages and decided what to do with them. There where ~600,  so I do expect to have made some mistakes, and would very happy to discuss if I missed any valuable ones. 

Looking at Adversial process, I don't see why I wouldn't have imported it. And yet I didn't mark it anything on my spreadsheet, so my bad:
 

We can import it. Let me know any others you think should be there. 

Ruby went through all the pages and decided whether to import them or not. I think it's unlikely we are going to import most of the remaining pages (some of which were pretty random and low-quality), but we will make sure they stay accessible, and if there is any individual post that isn't covered by the import that you feel is missing, there is a good chance we can just add it to the import. Which specific ones we should import is Ruby's call. 

↑ comment by totallybogus · 2020-09-23T05:27:33.950Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Thamks for that clarification! I think it would be OK to discuss the merits of importing any given page, perhaps in this very LW thread. Separately, there is quite a bit of Wiki content that's now been 'hidden' in the new system as a result of being merged with an existing tag, and the more "in-depth" portions of that content, if considered worthwhile, should probably be moved to newly-created 'wiki-only' pages, so as to reduce confusion among users who only care about the bare "tagging" aspect.

(I have in mind, e.g. the discussion of problematic 'persuasion' technology in the Dark Arts wiki page, or the 'community' conceptual metaphor for computer-mediated communication as discussed in the page on "Groupthink". That kind of content can make sense on a "wiki only" page, not so much in the bare description of a "tag"!)

Replies from: Ruby

↑ comment by Ruby · 2020-09-23T05:48:31.541Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

The vision is that tag pages should be wiki pages, no matter the depth. (Long pages get displayed with truncation on load, the rest behind "Read More", so it's fine). I think it's actually good to keep the longer discussion on the one page for the topic.

I suspect that most of the "missing content" comes from the fact we haven't finished "merging" the old wiki pages with existing tags, and therefore the current text is just whatever the new tag already had. (And the revision/history reviewer makes it seem like this intentional, but it's not.)

Merging = combine new and old text in whatever most makes sense. Combine and take whichever bits are better when they conflict.

The campaign to get through all the manual import processing continues! We just launched the new tagging dashboard today, on which you can filter for pages requiring merging [? · GW]. Currently 75 remaining for merges.. 

Replies from: Ruby

↑ comment by Ruby · 2020-09-23T05:50:12.252Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Ah, yep, Dark Arts [? · GW] has the flag set for requiring a manual merge. These show up on the tag dashboard and when you go to edit the tag. Someone will get to it! (Of course, feel free to be someone, but no pressure.)
 

Yep, after we are done with the import, we are going to redirect all the pages we imported. And then probably make all the remaining pages on the old wiki read-only, so we don't have to maintain a whole separate wiki system forever. 

Yeah, seems reasonable. We show the full number on hover-over, but seems probably good to also display the full number by default.

Here's a new one. I'm not sure how to make a longterm one.

https://join.slack.com/t/lwtaggers/shared_invite/zt-ky9ys5dx-MOxZiySdd5lX7XTvBde78Q

Great questions! I'll answer with what I think, and people can argue with me if they want about what the conventions should be.

For wiki pages which are now tags, should we remove linked LessWrong posts, since they are likely listed below?

If they seem like not especially top posts for the tag, then yes.

If the list seems like it is really top posts for the tag, then seems good to keep them. By top I mean "introduces the term" or "is really good explanation for it".

What should the convention be for linking to people's names? For example, I have seen the following:

• LessWrong profile
• Personal website/blog
• Wiki/tag page on person
• Wikipedia article on person
• No link
• No name

For a LessWrong user with a modern LessWrong account, I think we should link to their current profile page, especially if it's currently linking to a wiki page that's not very good. 

If there's current a link to a wiki page for the person and it has a bunch of details, I think that should be kept, but we should update the wiki profile page to have a link to their LessWrong profile.

If there's a link to a Wikipedia page (e.g. Kurzweil) or a personal blog, I think that's good to leave as is.

If there's no link, that's fine to leave as is for the purpose of this import edit, but supererogatory to add a link to elsewhere.

No name seems fine if there's a link to a post. You can see the name via hover-over.

Finally, should the "see also" section be a comma-separated list after the first paragraph, or a bulleted list at the end of the page?

I personally think that the comma-separated list near the top is very valuable for helping quickly discover adjacent topics they might be interested in.

My thought is: there should be a comma-separated list near the top for especially related tags, wikis, and maybe sequences.

If there's additional stuff, e.g., links to external links to other resources, posts, whatever, those should be in a separate list further down on the page.

I'm actually unsure of what the title of those sections should be when there are two. Seems weird to have them both be "see also", so sometimes I've used "related tags" and I saw someone else write "related tags and wikis" which also seems fine. I'm interested in suggestions.