[This got long, skip to the BOOKMARK for key bit if desired]
The primary drivers for starting this project was to get writing reps in and motivation to write well-researched posts on a variety of “big” issues, ideally well edited and boiled down to succinct bodies with even more concise summaries.
I’m decent at organizing my thoughts and presenting coherent ideas when I have thousands of words to play with; disseminating [hopefully] great ideas to as many people as possible means the shorter and pithier the better. I might be craz…”dedicated” enough to read the entire IPCC 5th assessment report ’cause I wanted to know exactly what we know about what’s going on with the whole Climate thing.
Expecting that level of “dedication” from everyone is absurd for a variety of reasons, and a quality summary that links to depth and detailed explaations would provide way more access to better information. A good, useful summary does require understanding, effort, competency, and trust: I’d like to think I have the first 3, and hopefully can earn the 4th.
However, writing something like that is a *ton* of work, and more importantly, is unlikely to fit in a facebook post (working on setting up blog now, content fit than medium fit).
My current plan is when a long paper is finished, do several days of “subtopics” with short summaries, so as not to overwhelm. This lets me have a bit of control over topic discussions and keeping them manageable, as well as the quite self-interested “counting dozens of hours of work as multiple days for the every-day-for-a-year project”. (I initially felt bad about the idea of gaming the structure a bit, but solved that once I realized this meets both the letter and the spirit of the project)
Even with the “gaming the system” issue resolved, something doesn’t feel quite right about that solution. So I’m soliciting thoughts and suggestions on improvements/modifications or just straight a better way to incorporate big writings into this current structure/project. Fire away, all ideas welcome!