Expanding the wiki with a RPF created content section?

[TruffleGnocchi]

Would it be good to expand the Wiki page, maybe a separate wiki, with disclaimer that says the content might not reflect Ray Peat's views, that its coming from RPF members?

This forum almost has a wiki structure, because of all the topics that can be posted on. But I think it might be valuable if there were wiki or wiki-like pages. For example: RP doesnt talk much about Taurine, L-Theanine, Peptides, TRT, methylene blue, quinine, etc. Or even things Ray talks about but people could still make a dedicated page for it.
For example, Glycine. Someone could create a page and write something about it, maybe add the dosages they used, the effects, and put the sources for the content. Then someone else could correct it if the studies were misinterpreted or if there is another better study that disproved the previous study. Collectively over time I think it might turn into something great.
Could have amino-acid section, with pages for each amino acid, carotenoid section, estrogens with different estrogens, protocols, theories, different androgenic steroids.

Like the regular wikipedia but RPF created and maintained based on RPF community's views, with evidence or some logic at least.
First someone could create a page that would be totally off from what is true, but over time after many contributions and corrections it would get increasingly better.
I know anyone here can just create a post under the respective topic, but people can only add comments, and edit their posts for a brief time after posting. And the posts just pile up over time, many repeating what has been discussed before. Then it becomes too much to read if one would want to not miss anything that has been said about a topic. I think wiki-like pages that everyone can correct with admin's review or something, it could be good. If someone suggests a correction, an unbiased-as-possible admin could review the correction that has been suggested, and then deciding based on the source (science paper or logic) of the correction if it gets accepted and modifies the wiki page or not.
A separate wiki or clearly separated section from Ray Peat's words, an RPF member's wiki section. So there would not be confusion of what is RP ideas and what might not be.
For start, copying what is on wikipedia or other wikis, then adding to or correcting that with better studies or something like that.

If someone wants to know about the opinion of RPF people on supplementing vitamin B2, or Taurine, or Creatine, they could go to the wiki first and see what is the thing that is accepted as currently valid information on that topic and why, potentially the dosages, the source links, photos of molecules, maybe list of sources for buying the compound if it is a page about a compound that can be bought. Instead of typing vitamin B2 and scrolling endlessly through the posts and then reading a few, a few off-topic that happen to mention B2. Or instead of making a new post with basically the same question that has already been answered, somewhere.

 

[Peatress]

Interesting - but we have a good search engine on the forum why would we need a separate website for forum content?

"If someone wants to know about the opinion of RPF people on supplementing vitamin B2, or Taurine, or Creatine," they just use the search function on the forum.

 

[TruffleGnocchi]

The search function and the "has this been .. before" when you write the title of a new post, very useful features. But I mean like a page that can grow and improve over time, that reflects very loosely the consensus of the RPF. Instead of getting results of a bunch of posts about a topic, reading bulky personal stories in the process and reading them all then shuffling around the ideas in your mind, forgetting things that you read 15min ago. A single page I think would be much better for a human reader. Quicker to read and less likely to forget things, easier to understand. People post a lot of stuff on topics, but the page would be like a concentrated gist of it

 

[TruffleGnocchi]

This is very similar to wikipedia: Caffeine but it has a different or more focus than wikipedia page Caffeine - Wikipedia .

Or the erowid page on caffeine Erowid Caffeine Vault Has experience reports, links to books, Q&A, combinations. Different kind of organisation its good

 

[Peatress]

The search function and the "has this been .. before" when you write the title of a new post, very useful features. But I mean like a page that can grow and improve over time, that reflects very loosely the consensus of the RPF. Instead of getting results of a bunch of posts about a topic, reading bulky personal stories in the process and reading them all then shuffling around the ideas in your mind, forgetting things that you read 15min ago. A single page I think would be much better for a human reader. Quicker to read and less likely to forget things, easier to understand. People post a lot of stuff on topics, but the page would be like a concentrated gist of it

I'm not sure there is a forum consensus. People tend to write posts in context and if the material is then posted elsewhere it will be out of context.

 

[TruffleGnocchi]

True people disagree on stuff. Still I think on some things people generally agree. Especially if RP talked about it, it can be included in the page, then others can add to it, and if someone can convince the admin the current page is incorrect, correct it.
Like someone writes a page on quinine, and says it antagonises serotonin and links a research paper, then someone else can submit their change with a new link to a paper that says it increases serotonin, and if admin agrees then the change gets implemented. Or maybe let any member add or change anything, and keep history stored, so that if someone changes something maliciously or is clearly wrong then admin can roll back.
It would be a lot of work for the admin I imagine. I dont know how this is done on wikipedia.

 

[TruffleGnocchi]

A good example for use case: a wiki page with a list of serotonin antagonists. Each item in the list could link to RPF posts and/or other sources to support that claim. People could update it over time as any new posts mention a new compound or food or intervention that is not on the list yet

 

[Peatress]

It seems like a lot of work but I am still not sure what the real benefit would be

 

[Peatress]

The search function and the "has this been .. before" when you write the title of a new post, very useful features. But I mean like a page that can grow and improve over time, that reflects very loosely the consensus of the RPF. Instead of getting results of a bunch of posts about a topic, reading bulky personal stories in the process and reading them all then shuffling around the ideas in your mind, forgetting things that you read 15min ago. A single page I think would be much better for a human reader. Quicker to read and less likely to forget things, easier to understand. People post a lot of stuff on topics, but the page would be like a concentrated gist of it

Surely the whole point of the ray peat forum is the community - getting to know people by reading their "bulky personal stories." I find those stories helpful and sometimes inspiring. Perhap if forgetting something you've 'read 15mins ago' is the issue then adding a bit of thiamine to your protocol might be helpful.

 

[ThinPicking]

The search function and the "has this been .. before" when you write the title of a new post, very useful features. But I mean like a page that can grow and improve over time, that reflects very loosely the consensus of the RPF. Instead of getting results of a bunch of posts about a topic, reading bulky personal stories in the process and reading them all then shuffling around the ideas in your mind, forgetting things that you read 15min ago. A single page I think would be much better for a human reader. Quicker to read and less likely to forget things, easier to understand. People post a lot of stuff on topics, but the page would be like a concentrated gist of it

Gnochhi if you want to do this you could do it quietly and privately. You could even implement this if you want to defer your own cognitive function.

GitHub - zylon-ai/private-gpt: Interact with your documents using the power of GPT, 100% privately, no data leaks

Interact with your documents using the power of GPT, 100% privately, no data leaks - zylon-ai/private-gpt

github.com

I think the only "consensus" to be found here is in the top left. I don't consider that a bad thing. And I'm not a picture of "health".

 

[Korven]

@TruffleGnocchi have you seen the Ray Peat Email Exchanges page?

Its pretty awesome if you want to check what Peat had to say on a certain condition/supplement/food whatever. Just Ctrl + F and off you go!

 

[TruffleGnocchi]

@TruffleGnocchi have you seen the Ray Peat Email Exchanges page?

Its pretty awesome if you want to check what Peat had to say on a certain condition/supplement/food whatever. Just Ctrl + F and off you go!

I've seen it, it's extensive very handy.

Gnochhi if you want to do this you could do it quietly and privately. You could even implement this if you want to defer your own cognitive function.

GitHub - zylon-ai/private-gpt: Interact with your documents using the power of GPT, 100% privately, no data leaks

Interact with your documents using the power of GPT, 100% privately, no data leaks - zylon-ai/private-gpt

github.com

I think the only "consensus" to be found here is in the top left. I don't consider that a bad thing. And I'm not a picture of "health".

True maybe an AI chat would be a better way to do this. Then I could ask the AI to list all the serotonin antagonists ever mentioned. Not sure what you mean by top left consensus.