Collected Knowledge section?

I noticed that the topic ‘Right Knowlege’ came up for about the fourth time at least in the discussions. I know that we can use the great search feature that tells us where key words were mentioned already. But I also understand that people don’t want to browse through ten lengthy topics with participants not always sticking to the subject.
And I thought it would be nice to have a place where popular topics would be placed, followed by links to publicly available articles and relevant sutta quotes that people mentioned in the discussions - a kind of database or reference spot. Or could “Essays” be used for it?
Also what would be a smart/lean way to manage such a place? Individuals could collect the info - for example I could browse the forum for ‘Right Knowledge / Right Liberation’ discussions, collect quotes and literature. And then others could add to it - not as a discussion but only for sutta references and literature.
What to you think? I think it would be beneficial

Indeed it would. In fact, this was the idea behind the proposed wiki pages. We haven’t really progressed with the idea, but I still think it works in principle.

One reason I haven’t pushed this idea more is because of the technical limitations of this platform for doing such work. I’d like to see support for notes and references; also tables and Table of Contents would be nice. It would be possible to hack Discourse to do these, but Discourse is in the process of moving to a new editor/markdown standard, and I want to wait until this is settled before even considering such things.

Still, there’s no reason we can’t start. If you’re interested, just start an article in the wiki category and we can go from there.

As an example of what is possible, check out this page:

They write their wiki pages on Discourse and use a custom scraper to build the structured wiki site.

Bhante, would you mind reviewing the wiki entry I did?

especially if the structure makes sense, also for other topics often discussed on SC…

Thanks so much, see there for my comments.

Thanks Bhante, that looks neat. Two minor remarks:

  • The Table of Contents doesn’t fit the article - should I adjust it?
  • “1. Interpretation” doesn’t really contain interpretations, rather (open) questions that come up often. I see it as part of the summary, but also don’t see what could be written in ‘interpretation’ as I thought to have rather a collection of available knowledge without necessarily a conclusion (unless there is a scholarly consensus).
    However I see the benefit of sticking with the wiki-format and don’t mind much that the headline ‘interpretation’ doesn’t fit 100%.
    I agree that this is a good format to present knowledge and would take the liberty to present other topics in the hopes that fellow contributors jump in to correct and add to the info…


Yes, maybe something else would be better.

What I would hope is that a wiki article provides a simple, sane, reliable resource to answer basic questions that seekers might have, while giving hints as to further exploration. And that’s what it does!

Alternative suggestion for ‘Interpretation’:

  • Points of discussion
  • Regular points of discussion

But it’s also okay as it is, maybe we can wait until there are two-three other wiki entries and see if a different sensible headline emerges

1 Like

Either way is fine, I think.