I think it’s a good resource for pointing people to; it would be a pity if LW reaction was dominated by nit-picks.
Unfortunately one is talking about a series of ideas that can already easily trigger weirdness heuristics and feelings of crankiness whether or not they exist. Every little feature that reinforces that (such as typos, references to undefined terms, etc.) will make that worse, possibly at a very rapid rate.
it would be a pity if LW reaction was dominated by nit-picks
In what way would that be a pity? The negative impact of prevalence of nitpicking is in being misinterpreted as signaling negative overall impression or in making the signal about overall impression hard to hear. Whose mistake or difficulty to estimate the impression are we talking about here? I’d guess that most would agree that the site potentially makes a positive contribution, and would be even better if some low-hanging fruit is additionally collected.
“Homo sapience” → “Homo Sapiens”
I personally like the website design.
The summaries of academic papers look serious (not cranky) and the FAQ is well-written.
I think it’s a good resource for pointing people to; it would be a pity if LW reaction was dominated by nit-picks.
Unfortunately one is talking about a series of ideas that can already easily trigger weirdness heuristics and feelings of crankiness whether or not they exist. Every little feature that reinforces that (such as typos, references to undefined terms, etc.) will make that worse, possibly at a very rapid rate.
In what way would that be a pity? The negative impact of prevalence of nitpicking is in being misinterpreted as signaling negative overall impression or in making the signal about overall impression hard to hear. Whose mistake or difficulty to estimate the impression are we talking about here? I’d guess that most would agree that the site potentially makes a positive contribution, and would be even better if some low-hanging fruit is additionally collected.
Why Our Kind Can’t Cooperate may be relevant here. The good things about the site deserve praise as much as the bad parts deserve criticism.
(Edited after Vladimir Nesov replied)
(Would’ve upvoted for the reference, downvoted for “true” given without further detail.)