Ciro Santilli @cirosantilli 35

Closurism is a term invented by Ciro Santilli to refer to content moderation policies that lock threads in online forums, preventing people from adding new comments from that point onward.

This is similar to deletionism but a bit less worse, as the pre-existing content is maintained. But new relevant content that comes up cannot be added in the future, so it is still bad.

The outcome of closurism is that new forum posts must then be made about up-to-date aspects of the topic. But then those may fail to reach the same PageRank, so most people never get the new information, or create new posts leading to useless duplication of work.

Appears to be a Wikipedia clone but with much lower/no notability requirements guidelines, which overcomes one of Wikipedia's main issues: deletionism.

They do have the interesting idea of importing deleted Wikipedia pages as a source of content, which leads to some epic "most viewed pages" such as en.everybodywiki.com/List_of_erotic_and_sex_workers_with_unnatural_death which currently reads:

We can for example see Ciro Santilli's deleted entry PsiQuantum at: en.everybodywiki.com/PsiQuantum, Wikipedia deletion page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PsiQuantum. Their attribution is atrocious however, e.g. it does not seem possible to find any mention of "Ciro Santilli" on the edit history, which just points to the delete article which is not visible anymore. They could really get into trouble for this one day.

Their main use case, as suggested by the website itself, if for people/brands to create pages about themselves.

This combined with the lack of "one version of each page per person" seems like an explosive invitation for unsolvable edit wars.

The website is backed by a French startup: jobs.stationf.co/companies/wiki-valley.

Nothing personal, just Ciro Santilli strongly disagrees with the moderation philosophies of these users.

One particular type of user Ciro particularly dislikes are those who do more moderation than content. Ciro finds it very hard to understand why some people spend so much time moderating. Maybe that's how politicians exist, some people just like that kind of activity.

The moderators tend to have lower intermediate rep. They spend too much time moderating and too little time coding.

TBD:

Not so strong, but bad experience:

Deleted answers are dumped at: github.com/cirosantilli/cirosantilli.github.io/issues

On September 2024, GitHub forbade our China Dictatorship auto-reply bot, the reason given is because they forbid comment reply bots in general. Though it was cool to see a junior support staff person giving out what obviously triggered the action:before a more senior one took over.

Ciro was slightly saddened but not totally surprized by the bloodbath against him on the Reddit the threads he created:

So we observe once again the stupidity of deletionism towards anything that is considered controversial. The West is discussion fatigued, and would rather delete discussion than have it.

We also se people against you having freedom to moderate your own repositories as you like it, with bots or otherwise. Giving up freedoms for nothing, because "bot is evil".

Announcements:

Long story short, the project is so far a complete failure on the most important metric: number of regular users, which current sits at exactly one: myself.

There were notable users who found the project online and who actually tried to use the website for some content and provided extremely valuable feedback:Unfortunately after the period of a few weeks they stopped using it to follow their other priorities instead. Which is of course totally fine, however sad.

I still believe that the OurBigBook Web feature is a significant tech innovation that could make the website go big.

I also believe that the project gets many fundamentals of braindumping right, notably the infinitely deep table of contents without forced scoping, e.g.:does not make Calculus have an ID orr URL of mathematics/calculus, rather it's just calculus.

But there is a fundamental difficulty in reaching critical mass to that self-sustaining point, as people don't seem to be convinced by these logical "my system is better" argument alone, as opposed to having them Google into stuff they need now and then understand that the project is awesome.

A closely related critical mass issue is that existing big multiuser knowledge base websites such as Stack Overflow and Wikipedia have a tremendous advantage on PageRank. No matter how useless a Wikipedia article about something is, it will always be on top of Google within a week of creation for title hits. And since the main goal of publishing your stuff is to get it seen, it makes much more sense for writers to publish on such existing websites whenever possible, because anywhere else it is way way less likely to be seen by anybody.

Even I end up writing way more on Stack Overflow than on OurBigBook as a programmer. But I still believe that there is a value to OurBigBook, for the usual reasons of:

Perhaps what saddens me the most is that even on GitHub stars/Twitter/Hacker news terms there is almost no interest in the project despite the fact that I consider that it has innovations, while many other note taking apps as well in the thousands of stars. Maybe I'm just delusional and all the tech that I'm doing is completely useless?

Part of the issue is probably linked to the fact that most other note taking apps focus on "help me organize my ideas so I can make more money" and often completely ignore "I want to publish my knowledge", and stuff that helps you make money is always easier to sell and promote.

OurBigBook on the other hand a huge focus on "I want to publish me knowledge". It aims almost single mindedly in being the best tool ever for that. However this doesn't make money for people, and therefore there are going to be way less potential users.

I do believe strongly that all it takes is a few users for the project to snowball. For some people, once you start braindumping, it is very addictive, and you never want to stop basically. So with only a few of those we can open large parts of undergrad knowledge to the world. But these people are few, and so far I haven't been able to find even a single one like me, and on top of that convince them that I have created the ultimate system for their knowledge publishing desires.

Another general lesson is that I should perhaps aimed for greater compatibility with existing systems such as Obsidian. Taking something that many people already know and use can have a huge impact on acceptance. E.g. anything that touches Obsidian can reach thousands of stars: github.com/KosmosisDire/obsidian-webpage-export. Note taking apps that aim for "markdown" compatibility also tend to fare better, even if in the end you inevitably have to extend the Markdown for some of your features. And WYSIWYG, which I want but don't have, is perhaps the ultimate familiarity.

Another issue compared to other platforms is that OurBigBook just came out late. Obsidian launched in 2020. Roam Research and Trillium Notes also came earlier. And it is hard to fight the advantage already gained by those on the "I'm going to take some personal notes" area. I do believe however that there a strong separation between "these are my personal notes" and "I want to publish these". Once you decide to publish your knowledge, you immediately start to write in a different way, and it is very hard to convert pre-existing "private" notes into ones suitable for public consumption.