Why? As I asked in the title, Who owns LessWrong? For example: Who pays for the servers?
Don’t post the lesswrong equivalent of original research on the wiki.
This is not me posting original research. The existing article is offensive in tone, commits several logical errors, and its main conclusion—that there is no selection for behaviors that benefit the group rather than the individual—is one that no evolutionary biologist today would agree with.
If those problems are present in the sections of the existing article, they wouldn’t be corrected by having a different section that argues the opposite way.
If the existing article is offensive in tone, the solution is to correct its tone, not to just add paragraphs of a different or opposite tone.
If it commits logical errors, the solution is to correct the errors.
If it speaks falsely, the solution is to have it speak correctly.
Not to have the article just have a new section that says “All the above is wrong, and here’s why.”
You were effectively not editing the article, but carrying out an argument about the issue, and you were carrying it out on the page itself. That isn’t how the process must work with wiki pages.
Why? As I asked in the title, Who owns LessWrong? For example: Who pays for the servers?
Roughly speaking, he does. Or whoever does does so essentially at the behest of him or the SIAI. You chose the wrong grounds to challenge him. You would have been better served to target your questioning at how the wiki edit process should be. That is, you want to make Eliezer look like a dick in the eyes of the lesswrong community if he throws his weight around rather than question his practical right to do so if he pleases.
This is not me posting original research. The existing article is offensive in tone, commits several logical errors, and its main conclusion
This is you posting original-to-lesswrong research. The edits that you made are not all commonly accepted by the community and some of the dot points were not even presented as theses in any of your own posts. So yes, that is what I am talking about. I am not commenting in support of the group selection wiki page as it stands. I’m talking about putting new stuff on the wiki.
I am hoping that Phil (or someone else) makes a discussion post directly on the subject where this kind of thing can be discussed. Would you mind if I held off until then? (You could even make the post with your own views if you like!)
Yes, I would mind. I am not asking for debate on whether the bullet points are correct or accepted, but on the simple factual matter of whether they come from his article. I think the claim of “original research” is flat-out false.
Why? As I asked in the title, Who owns LessWrong? For example: Who pays for the servers?
This is not me posting original research. The existing article is offensive in tone, commits several logical errors, and its main conclusion—that there is no selection for behaviors that benefit the group rather than the individual—is one that no evolutionary biologist today would agree with.
If those problems are present in the sections of the existing article, they wouldn’t be corrected by having a different section that argues the opposite way.
If the existing article is offensive in tone, the solution is to correct its tone, not to just add paragraphs of a different or opposite tone. If it commits logical errors, the solution is to correct the errors. If it speaks falsely, the solution is to have it speak correctly.
Not to have the article just have a new section that says “All the above is wrong, and here’s why.”
You were effectively not editing the article, but carrying out an argument about the issue, and you were carrying it out on the page itself. That isn’t how the process must work with wiki pages.
Roughly speaking, he does. Or whoever does does so essentially at the behest of him or the SIAI. You chose the wrong grounds to challenge him. You would have been better served to target your questioning at how the wiki edit process should be. That is, you want to make Eliezer look like a dick in the eyes of the lesswrong community if he throws his weight around rather than question his practical right to do so if he pleases.
This is you posting original-to-lesswrong research. The edits that you made are not all commonly accepted by the community and some of the dot points were not even presented as theses in any of your own posts. So yes, that is what I am talking about. I am not commenting in support of the group selection wiki page as it stands. I’m talking about putting new stuff on the wiki.
Which bullet points are not supported in Phil’s article?
I am hoping that Phil (or someone else) makes a discussion post directly on the subject where this kind of thing can be discussed. Would you mind if I held off until then? (You could even make the post with your own views if you like!)
Yes, I would mind. I am not asking for debate on whether the bullet points are correct or accepted, but on the simple factual matter of whether they come from his article. I think the claim of “original research” is flat-out false.
Your disagreement is noted. I invite you to start the relevant discussion thread if you consider it important enough to discuss further.