I assume a lot of people already know this but in case anyone doesn’t, Stack Exchange, the software that powers MathOverflow, is now free. If there was interest in creating a RationalityOverflow using the same software then convincing the community it is worthwhile is the only barrier.
A class of problems I’d expect to have to ward off with a rationality Q&A site are explicit or implicit requests for personal advice… following the MathOverflow example, perhaps “Questions of interest to other rationalists” would be useful.
Another problem is that voting on the answers might start to be an opinion poll. It might just become a vehicle for majoritarianism in the community.
My first thought to treat this would be that answers should be “Robust to variation in priors”. I believe Jaynes had similar advice for the philosophy of science. Anyway, it would prevent people mixing in particular with the answers. The goal would be to have answers provide “update procedures” rather than the posteriors of others’ updates. “A good answer is a good update procedure”?
Reading the information on creating a site a bit more it seems they will consider existing users with over 1000 ‘karma’ who support the proposed new site as a factor in accepting proposals. I have over 1000 reputation on StackOverflow (the original site) and would be willing to support a proposal for a RationalityOverflow.
That would be interesting. I’m not quite sure how it would work though. I guess examples of appropriate questions and inappropriate questions (as the proposal requires) would help to clarify the purpose of a RationalityOverflow.
No, I’m not exactly sure how it would work and I wouldn’t want to see some spin off site that competed with Less Wrong. It is a possible resolution to the difference of opinion over expanding access to this site vs. ‘dumbing down’ the content. I would imagine the sites would serve overlapping but different purposes—a RationalityOverflow could be a place for people who might be intimidated or turned off by Less Wrong for other reasons to ask rationality themed questions. It could serve the role of the site we point people to do for answers to basic questions that they are expected to grasp before participating here. Not that it should only be for basic questions.
I assume a lot of people already know this but in case anyone doesn’t, Stack Exchange, the software that powers MathOverflow, is now free. If there was interest in creating a RationalityOverflow using the same software then convincing the community it is worthwhile is the only barrier.
I wonder what puts a question into the category “rationality question”, and how people would know to go to that site to ask such questions.
This is a good question and I don’t have a good answer yet.
(I agree with you that creating competition with LW is not desirable.)
A class of problems I’d expect to have to ward off with a rationality Q&A site are explicit or implicit requests for personal advice… following the MathOverflow example, perhaps “Questions of interest to other rationalists” would be useful.
Another problem is that voting on the answers might start to be an opinion poll. It might just become a vehicle for majoritarianism in the community.
My first thought to treat this would be that answers should be “Robust to variation in priors”. I believe Jaynes had similar advice for the philosophy of science. Anyway, it would prevent people mixing in particular with the answers. The goal would be to have answers provide “update procedures” rather than the posteriors of others’ updates. “A good answer is a good update procedure”?
Reading the information on creating a site a bit more it seems they will consider existing users with over 1000 ‘karma’ who support the proposed new site as a factor in accepting proposals. I have over 1000 reputation on StackOverflow (the original site) and would be willing to support a proposal for a RationalityOverflow.
That would be interesting. I’m not quite sure how it would work though. I guess examples of appropriate questions and inappropriate questions (as the proposal requires) would help to clarify the purpose of a RationalityOverflow.
No, I’m not exactly sure how it would work and I wouldn’t want to see some spin off site that competed with Less Wrong. It is a possible resolution to the difference of opinion over expanding access to this site vs. ‘dumbing down’ the content. I would imagine the sites would serve overlapping but different purposes—a RationalityOverflow could be a place for people who might be intimidated or turned off by Less Wrong for other reasons to ask rationality themed questions. It could serve the role of the site we point people to do for answers to basic questions that they are expected to grasp before participating here. Not that it should only be for basic questions.