The idea is that if you can’t get your quote published outside of Wikipedia, you shouldn’t put it in Wikipedia. Preferably, “outside” shouldn’t be your own blog, but something more respectable.
The conflict of interest part is (this is my opinion, not Wikipedia policy) just a simple heuristic to prevent most of the “it’s not anywhere else, but I insist it should be in Wikipedia” edits.
Yes, it is extremely annoying if a newspaper prints a false information, and some Wikipedia editor insists on adding it to the article, and calls all expert explanations “original research”. But still, the heuristic in general is useful—it would be much worse on average to instead have hundreds of crackpots claiming expertise and “correcting” information from newspapers and books. It is easier to find a third-party volunteer to verify whether X really was published in a newspaper, than to verify whether X is true. -- And you need a lot of volunteers who don’t have life and only care about the Wikipedia rules, because if you remove all such non-experts from the game, and leave only the experts and the crackpots, the crackpots will obviously win by their numbers and dedication.
If a newspaper contains an error, the long-term strategy to fix it is to find or create another newspaper article or a book that will correct the error. In general, the battles should be fought outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should just announce the winners.
The only interest I have that could disqualify me is that I don’t want humanity to die.
Problem is, there are many people who believe the same. Don’t only think: spam, but also: religions, cults, homeopathics, etc. Even if you are right and they are wrong, the difference is only seen by those who agree that you are right. For everyone else, this is just one of literally thousands of different causes that wants to be promoted by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia immune system will evaluate you as a threat.
The Wikipedia system doesn’t work in a way that effectively identifies all suitable texts.
Well, this is the place where you have the chance to add the text successfully. The more important and relevant the source of the text, the higher your chance of success.
I’m surprised that given the amount of utilitarianism on Lesswrong that sentiment doesn’t get a better reception on Lesswrong.
Okay, let’s talk about consequences. You add a MIRI quote to Wikipedia, someone deletes it. You add it again, someone deletes it again and quotes some Wikipedia rule. You add it again and perhaps even say that you consider Wikipedia rules irrelevant in this specific case. The quote is removed again, and now you have a group of people who have no life watching the page all day ready to remove your quote if you add it again. Also, you have increases the probability of other MIRI quotes being removed in the future, even if they are moderately well sourced.
Strategy B: Get the quote in some high-status source. Then add the quote to the article, somewhere at the bottom (obviously it’s not a part of the plot, nor the characters and cast, but maybe criticism), with a reference to the source. The probability that it stays there is much higher.
I guess it’s easy to argue in the abstract that one should push the fat man
But in real life the fat man has dozen deontologist bodyguards ready to stop you. So instead you listen to the bodyguards; they tell you they only obey the wisdom from newspapers, so you bring them the newspaper article recommending to push the man, and they will happily push him themselves.
Maybe instead of focusing on details of quoting in Wikipedia, we should be looking at how to write things which are sufficiently sharp and interesting that they keep getting quoted.
The idea is that if you can’t get your quote published outside of Wikipedia, you shouldn’t put it in Wikipedia. Preferably, “outside” shouldn’t be your own blog, but something more respectable.
Yes, having it published outside would be the start. I live in a world where it’s easy for me to get things about Quantified Self published in relevant sources. I just have trouble placing something about my father in there to get his Wikipedia article factually correct. While he lived he wanted our press stories without entanglement.
It might be that I underrate the difficult that MIRI has with getting something published ‘outside’. I would expect that it should be easy to find a Wired journalist who is happy to write such a story.
But even if you can not find an actual journalist, write the article yourself. Most newspapers do publish meaningful op-eds. I would be surprised if you wouldn’t find a newspaper willing to publish it. It’s free content for them and MIRI is sort of authoritative, so there no reason not to publish the article provided it’s well written.
Getting something published in the Guardian’s Comment-is-free is also really easy and might be enough that most Wikipedia editors consider it “outside”.
Okay, let’s talk about consequences. You add a MIRI quote to Wikipedia, someone deletes it. You add it again, someone deletes it again and quotes some Wikipedia rule. You add it again and perhaps even say that you consider Wikipedia rules irrelevant in this specific case.
I probably wouldn’t engage in an edit war. I nowhere argued that you should be stupid about adding the article.
Yes, I do agree that you would want to go the road of getting the quote in some newspaper before you edit the Wikipedia article. Given that the article is about a topic with a lot of interest that what you need to do, to let the edit stick.
CiF might actually be a good place to get an op-ed placed. Note that they happily put a stupid headline on (its byline might as well be “Trolling is Free, Clicks are Sacred”) and hack up the text, all while putting your picture on, not paying you and bringing on the faeces-flinging monkeys in the comments (which one should never, ever read). But it might be of interest to them.
I live in a world where it’s easy for me to get things about Quantified Self published in relevant sources.
How much is because of the relevance of QS to the sources, and how much is your skill? I mean, if your skill plays an important role, perhaps you could volunteer for MIRI or CFAR as a media person. For example, they would give you the materials they produced, and you would try to get them in media (not Wikipedia, for the beginning).
It might be that I underrate the difficult that MIRI has with getting something published ‘outside’. I would expect that it should be easy to find a Wired journalist who is happy to write such a story.
I don’t know such details about MIRI; I am on the different side of the planet. You would have to ask them whether they are satisfied with their media output. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. Maybe they consider it a better use of their time to focus on something else (AI research), but would appreciate if someone else pushed their material to media. This is just my guess, but I think it’s worth asking. (Specifically: ask lukeprog.)
But even if you can not find an actual journalist, write the article yourself.
This is another way you could be helpful. Again, ask them. But I think that having a volunteer who pushes your material to media, and is good at doing it, is a great help for any organization.
How much is because of the relevance of QS to the sources, and how much is your skill? I mean, if your skill plays an important role, perhaps you could volunteer for MIRI or CFAR as a media person.
It’s difficult to judge your own skill. I was at the right place at the right time and therefore the first person to be featured in German newsmedia. I spoke in a way that was interesting and from there other journalists continue to contact me.
MIRI PR goals are also very different than the one of QS. QS basically wins if you can motivate individiuals to do QS and come to QS meetups.
It’s not necessary to convince the existing medical system that QS is good. MIRI on the other hand wins to the extend it can convince AI researchers to change their ways and to the extend it gets funders who donate money to it, to increase it’s output.
MIRI PR was to takes care to avoid antagonizing existing AI researchers. If I do QS PR I don’t want to associate with Big Pharma and can say things that might antagonize people.
I could imagine that I could contribute something to CFAR PR if CFAR would operate in Germany but currently that not the case. CFAR probably benefits from telling the story that it’s the new hot thing that much better than the awful status quo.
Should CFAR organise an event in Berlin, I could try to get a journalist to cover it.
But I think that having a volunteer who pushes your material to media, and is good at doing it, is a great help for any organization.
It’s not really a matter of pushing. but a matter of forming it in a way that the media wants it. Authenticity matters a great deal and if a journalist would get the feeling that I’m just pushing someone else’s statements the kind of work I did wouldn’t work as well.
From the mindset it’s much more that you have something they want and they have something you want.
A while ago I heard Jeff Hawkins say that the best way to get VC funding who started Palm is to play hard to get. The same thing might be true with regards to media.
In this case I think the film provides a good opportunity for setting up such a relationship for MIRI. Start by by visible at the beginning as someone authoritative who has something interesting to say about the film.
Afterwards I would expect journalists will be reaching out to MIRI and MIRI can provide them stuff that they want. That different than MIRI trying to push something on journalists.
The idea is that if you can’t get your quote published outside of Wikipedia, you shouldn’t put it in Wikipedia. Preferably, “outside” shouldn’t be your own blog, but something more respectable.
The conflict of interest part is (this is my opinion, not Wikipedia policy) just a simple heuristic to prevent most of the “it’s not anywhere else, but I insist it should be in Wikipedia” edits.
Yes, it is extremely annoying if a newspaper prints a false information, and some Wikipedia editor insists on adding it to the article, and calls all expert explanations “original research”. But still, the heuristic in general is useful—it would be much worse on average to instead have hundreds of crackpots claiming expertise and “correcting” information from newspapers and books. It is easier to find a third-party volunteer to verify whether X really was published in a newspaper, than to verify whether X is true. -- And you need a lot of volunteers who don’t have life and only care about the Wikipedia rules, because if you remove all such non-experts from the game, and leave only the experts and the crackpots, the crackpots will obviously win by their numbers and dedication.
If a newspaper contains an error, the long-term strategy to fix it is to find or create another newspaper article or a book that will correct the error. In general, the battles should be fought outside of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia should just announce the winners.
Problem is, there are many people who believe the same. Don’t only think: spam, but also: religions, cults, homeopathics, etc. Even if you are right and they are wrong, the difference is only seen by those who agree that you are right. For everyone else, this is just one of literally thousands of different causes that wants to be promoted by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia immune system will evaluate you as a threat.
Well, this is the place where you have the chance to add the text successfully. The more important and relevant the source of the text, the higher your chance of success.
Okay, let’s talk about consequences. You add a MIRI quote to Wikipedia, someone deletes it. You add it again, someone deletes it again and quotes some Wikipedia rule. You add it again and perhaps even say that you consider Wikipedia rules irrelevant in this specific case. The quote is removed again, and now you have a group of people who have no life watching the page all day ready to remove your quote if you add it again. Also, you have increases the probability of other MIRI quotes being removed in the future, even if they are moderately well sourced.
Strategy B: Get the quote in some high-status source. Then add the quote to the article, somewhere at the bottom (obviously it’s not a part of the plot, nor the characters and cast, but maybe criticism), with a reference to the source. The probability that it stays there is much higher.
But in real life the fat man has dozen deontologist bodyguards ready to stop you. So instead you listen to the bodyguards; they tell you they only obey the wisdom from newspapers, so you bring them the newspaper article recommending to push the man, and they will happily push him themselves.
Maybe instead of focusing on details of quoting in Wikipedia, we should be looking at how to write things which are sufficiently sharp and interesting that they keep getting quoted.
Yes, having it published outside would be the start. I live in a world where it’s easy for me to get things about Quantified Self published in relevant sources. I just have trouble placing something about my father in there to get his Wikipedia article factually correct. While he lived he wanted our press stories without entanglement.
It might be that I underrate the difficult that MIRI has with getting something published ‘outside’. I would expect that it should be easy to find a Wired journalist who is happy to write such a story.
But even if you can not find an actual journalist, write the article yourself. Most newspapers do publish meaningful op-eds. I would be surprised if you wouldn’t find a newspaper willing to publish it. It’s free content for them and MIRI is sort of authoritative, so there no reason not to publish the article provided it’s well written.
Getting something published in the Guardian’s Comment-is-free is also really easy and might be enough that most Wikipedia editors consider it “outside”.
I probably wouldn’t engage in an edit war. I nowhere argued that you should be stupid about adding the article.
Yes, I do agree that you would want to go the road of getting the quote in some newspaper before you edit the Wikipedia article. Given that the article is about a topic with a lot of interest that what you need to do, to let the edit stick.
CiF might actually be a good place to get an op-ed placed. Note that they happily put a stupid headline on (its byline might as well be “Trolling is Free, Clicks are Sacred”) and hack up the text, all while putting your picture on, not paying you and bringing on the faeces-flinging monkeys in the comments (which one should never, ever read). But it might be of interest to them.
How much is because of the relevance of QS to the sources, and how much is your skill? I mean, if your skill plays an important role, perhaps you could volunteer for MIRI or CFAR as a media person. For example, they would give you the materials they produced, and you would try to get them in media (not Wikipedia, for the beginning).
I don’t know such details about MIRI; I am on the different side of the planet. You would have to ask them whether they are satisfied with their media output. Maybe they are, maybe they are not. Maybe they consider it a better use of their time to focus on something else (AI research), but would appreciate if someone else pushed their material to media. This is just my guess, but I think it’s worth asking. (Specifically: ask lukeprog.)
This is another way you could be helpful. Again, ask them. But I think that having a volunteer who pushes your material to media, and is good at doing it, is a great help for any organization.
It’s difficult to judge your own skill. I was at the right place at the right time and therefore the first person to be featured in German newsmedia. I spoke in a way that was interesting and from there other journalists continue to contact me.
MIRI PR goals are also very different than the one of QS. QS basically wins if you can motivate individiuals to do QS and come to QS meetups. It’s not necessary to convince the existing medical system that QS is good. MIRI on the other hand wins to the extend it can convince AI researchers to change their ways and to the extend it gets funders who donate money to it, to increase it’s output.
MIRI PR was to takes care to avoid antagonizing existing AI researchers. If I do QS PR I don’t want to associate with Big Pharma and can say things that might antagonize people.
I could imagine that I could contribute something to CFAR PR if CFAR would operate in Germany but currently that not the case. CFAR probably benefits from telling the story that it’s the new hot thing that much better than the awful status quo.
Should CFAR organise an event in Berlin, I could try to get a journalist to cover it.
It’s not really a matter of pushing. but a matter of forming it in a way that the media wants it. Authenticity matters a great deal and if a journalist would get the feeling that I’m just pushing someone else’s statements the kind of work I did wouldn’t work as well.
From the mindset it’s much more that you have something they want and they have something you want.
A while ago I heard Jeff Hawkins say that the best way to get VC funding who started Palm is to play hard to get. The same thing might be true with regards to media.
In this case I think the film provides a good opportunity for setting up such a relationship for MIRI. Start by by visible at the beginning as someone authoritative who has something interesting to say about the film.
Afterwards I would expect journalists will be reaching out to MIRI and MIRI can provide them stuff that they want. That different than MIRI trying to push something on journalists.
They are planning to do a workshop or a few of them in Europe. I don’t know more details, though.
Covering the event would be useful for next workshops and for the local LW meetups.