I’m disappointed that the details listed about social changes are so vague.
I would love to see some kind of Less Wrong council that meets regularly and discusses future directions. One problem at the moment is the lack of transparency about decisions—we generally don’t know if an idea has even been considered or why they have been rejected.
I’m disappointed that the details listed about social changes are so vague.
I committed somewhere to have a post on this out on Tuesday, so I went with what I had ready at the time. Details will follow.
I would love to see some kind of Less Wrong council that meets regularly and discusses future directions. One problem at the moment is the lack of transparency about decisions—we generally don’t know if an idea has even been considered or why they have been rejected.
What sort of medium do you think is best for this? A Slack chat? A regular thread here?
For almost everything, I’m happy with increased transparency. Whether we should move towards a more StackOverflow-like karma model where voting is an earned privilege is an example of something where an open discussion would be welcome, so everyone can get a sense of the pro and con arguments. But I can’t guarantee transparency about all decisions, because there are some things that are much easier to discuss in private. For example, consider hg00′s comment calling for the bans of VoiceOfRa (who was banned) and Lumifer (who isn’t banned). It seems to me that the number of cases where a ban decision will be swayed by public discussion is nowhere near large enough to justify the costs of public discussions of ban decisions.
The first, ahem, detail that needs clarification is the goals. The “social changes” aim to change LW in which direction? “Better” is not a good answer. What do you want to grow, what do you want to kill, what do you want to transplant? By which metrics will you decide whether you’re getting closer to your goals?
What sort of medium do you think is best for this? A Slack chat? A regular thread here?
Not chat—you want something slower and more deliberate. Maybe a set of forum threads, one per issue.
The “social changes” aim to change LW in which direction?
I don’t think there’s a good short answer to this, because if I try to point at individual shifts and say “shifts like those shifts” I need to give many examples to give a clear picture, and if I try to point at principles guiding the shifts and say “shifts that follow those principles” I need to give many details about the principles to give a clear picture.
So I’ll give a long answer, but that’ll take time. (Maybe in the course of writing a long answer I’ll discover the short version.)
It looks to me like there’s a progression from “no input or explanation” to “explanation but no input” to “input and explanation.” I’d say something is still transparent in the second case, but oftentimes what people are really interested in is input. (Me talking at you more isn’t as helpful as me listening to you more!)
Well, assuming the existence of some High Council, the transparency ranking would go like this:
You see a witch being burned at the stake. You assume the High Council ordered this.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned!”.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned for she consorted with Clippy!”.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned for reasons A, B, and C which we deem more important then the mitigating circumstances X and Y.”
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned, and, by the way, here are the minutes of the meeting where we decided she is to be burned.”
The High Council proclaims “Behold the witch! We will now debate in public whether she ought to be burned. What makes you think she is a witch?” A LessWronger: “She turned me into a newt!” The public: “A newt?!” The Lesswronger: “I got better”.
Even if we are already meta enough, I think a meta subreddit is a great idea. Giving a particular topic a specialized and dedicated location does serve to promote that topic, but it can also serve to remove it from more general locations, especially if that is requested or enforced, which can be a feature. (For example, discussion of stackoverflow is not allowed on stackoverflow; it is relegated to meta where people who don’t want it can ignore it.)
Disclaimer: I’m not a voice of authority, I’m just participating in the conversation and helping a little.
Social change is a lot “fuzzier” than technical change. Not only that, it requires looking at what makes a community successful, which Less Wrong communities ARE successful, and how we can continue to use this site to generate more successful communities. That’s a time commitment.
Sometimes, technical changes ARE social changes. It’s not the hill I’m dying on, by any means, but I really do think that changes to the voting structure and the home page will help people participate. A section of the site that is for “rationalists talking to rationalists” rather than “rationalists talking ABOUT rationality” may also be helpful.
Count me in as disappointed about social changes, I expected more concrete changes. Perhaps a date or time period as a Schelling point when we’d expect people to be more active or put more effort towards revitalizing LW.
I’m disappointed that the details listed about social changes are so vague.
I would love to see some kind of Less Wrong council that meets regularly and discusses future directions. One problem at the moment is the lack of transparency about decisions—we generally don’t know if an idea has even been considered or why they have been rejected.
I committed somewhere to have a post on this out on Tuesday, so I went with what I had ready at the time. Details will follow.
What sort of medium do you think is best for this? A Slack chat? A regular thread here?
For almost everything, I’m happy with increased transparency. Whether we should move towards a more StackOverflow-like karma model where voting is an earned privilege is an example of something where an open discussion would be welcome, so everyone can get a sense of the pro and con arguments. But I can’t guarantee transparency about all decisions, because there are some things that are much easier to discuss in private. For example, consider hg00′s comment calling for the bans of VoiceOfRa (who was banned) and Lumifer (who isn’t banned). It seems to me that the number of cases where a ban decision will be swayed by public discussion is nowhere near large enough to justify the costs of public discussions of ban decisions.
The first, ahem, detail that needs clarification is the goals. The “social changes” aim to change LW in which direction? “Better” is not a good answer. What do you want to grow, what do you want to kill, what do you want to transplant? By which metrics will you decide whether you’re getting closer to your goals?
Not chat—you want something slower and more deliberate. Maybe a set of forum threads, one per issue.
I don’t think there’s a good short answer to this, because if I try to point at individual shifts and say “shifts like those shifts” I need to give many examples to give a clear picture, and if I try to point at principles guiding the shifts and say “shifts that follow those principles” I need to give many details about the principles to give a clear picture.
So I’ll give a long answer, but that’ll take time. (Maybe in the course of writing a long answer I’ll discover the short version.)
I was imagining some people works be elected/appointed and that they’d Skype and then write up their decisions.
That doesn’t look terribly transparent to me.
It’d still be a massive improvement on what we have now and I assume that’d discuss interesting submissions
It looks to me like there’s a progression from “no input or explanation” to “explanation but no input” to “input and explanation.” I’d say something is still transparent in the second case, but oftentimes what people are really interested in is input. (Me talking at you more isn’t as helpful as me listening to you more!)
Well, assuming the existence of some High Council, the transparency ranking would go like this:
You see a witch being burned at the stake. You assume the High Council ordered this.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned!”.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned for she consorted with Clippy!”.
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned for reasons A, B, and C which we deem more important then the mitigating circumstances X and Y.”
The High Council proclaims “Let the witch be burned, and, by the way, here are the minutes of the meeting where we decided she is to be burned.”
The High Council proclaims “Behold the witch! We will now debate in public whether she ought to be burned. What makes you think she is a witch?” A LessWronger: “She turned me into a newt!” The public: “A newt?!” The Lesswronger: “I got better”.
Regarding “Less Wrong council” and StackOverflow...
What about meta.lesswrong.com? :P a LW to talk about LW? Or are we already meta enough…
More than enough. Meta is already more popular than everything else.
Even if we are already meta enough, I think a meta subreddit is a great idea. Giving a particular topic a specialized and dedicated location does serve to promote that topic, but it can also serve to remove it from more general locations, especially if that is requested or enforced, which can be a feature. (For example, discussion of stackoverflow is not allowed on stackoverflow; it is relegated to meta where people who don’t want it can ignore it.)
Disclaimer: I’m not a voice of authority, I’m just participating in the conversation and helping a little.
Social change is a lot “fuzzier” than technical change. Not only that, it requires looking at what makes a community successful, which Less Wrong communities ARE successful, and how we can continue to use this site to generate more successful communities. That’s a time commitment.
Sometimes, technical changes ARE social changes. It’s not the hill I’m dying on, by any means, but I really do think that changes to the voting structure and the home page will help people participate. A section of the site that is for “rationalists talking to rationalists” rather than “rationalists talking ABOUT rationality” may also be helpful.
Count me in as disappointed about social changes, I expected more concrete changes. Perhaps a date or time period as a Schelling point when we’d expect people to be more active or put more effort towards revitalizing LW.