I don’t apprecaite the hostility. I aimed to be helpful in spending time documenting and explaining these errors. This is something a heathy epistemic community is appreciative of, not annoyed by. If I had added mistaken passages to Wikipedia, I’d want to be told, and I’d react by reversing them myself. If any points I mentioned weren’t added by you, then as I wrote in my first comment:
...let me know that some of the issues I mention were already on Wikipedia beforehand. I’d be happy to try to edit those.
The point of writing about the mistakes here is to make clear why they indeed are mistakes, so that they aren’t repeated. That has value. And although I don’t think we should encourage a norm that those who observe and report a problem are responsible for fixing it, I will try to find and fix at least the pre-existing errors.
I’m not annoyed by these, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I’m grateful for your comments. I just meant to say these are exactly the sort of mistakes I was talking about in my post as needing fixing! However, talking about them here isn’t going to do much good, because people read Wikipedia, not LessWrong shortform comments, and I’m busy as hell working on social choice articles already.
From what I can tell, there’s one substantial error I introduced, which was accidentally conflating IIA with VNM-independence. (Although I haven’t double-checked, so I’m not sure they’re actually unrelated.) Along with that there’s some minor errors involving strict vs. non-strict inequality which I’d be happy to see corrected.
Thanks. Let me end with three comments. First, I wrote a few brief notes here that I hope clarify how Independence and IIA differ. Second, I want to stress that the problem with the use of Dutch books in the articles is a substantial one, not just a verbal one, as I explained here and here. Finally, I’m happy to hash out any remaining issues via direct message if you’d like—whether it’s about these points, others I raised in my initial comment, or any related edits.
I don’t apprecaite the hostility. I aimed to be helpful in spending time documenting and explaining these errors. This is something a heathy epistemic community is appreciative of, not annoyed by. If I had added mistaken passages to Wikipedia, I’d want to be told, and I’d react by reversing them myself. If any points I mentioned weren’t added by you, then as I wrote in my first comment:
The point of writing about the mistakes here is to make clear why they indeed are mistakes, so that they aren’t repeated. That has value. And although I don’t think we should encourage a norm that those who observe and report a problem are responsible for fixing it, I will try to find and fix at least the pre-existing errors.
I’m not annoyed by these, and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I’m grateful for your comments. I just meant to say these are exactly the sort of mistakes I was talking about in my post as needing fixing! However, talking about them here isn’t going to do much good, because people read Wikipedia, not LessWrong shortform comments, and I’m busy as hell working on social choice articles already.
From what I can tell, there’s one substantial error I introduced, which was accidentally conflating IIA with VNM-independence. (Although I haven’t double-checked, so I’m not sure they’re actually unrelated.) Along with that there’s some minor errors involving strict vs. non-strict inequality which I’d be happy to see corrected.
Thanks. Let me end with three comments. First, I wrote a few brief notes here that I hope clarify how Independence and IIA differ. Second, I want to stress that the problem with the use of Dutch books in the articles is a substantial one, not just a verbal one, as I explained here and here. Finally, I’m happy to hash out any remaining issues via direct message if you’d like—whether it’s about these points, others I raised in my initial comment, or any related edits.