Like, it’s possible ChristianKl simply saw it and wanted to share; I am not speculating on the actual history of it showing up here today.
Which makes it seem a bit different from “Oh, here’s a post that isn’t on LW and maybe ought to be.”
I posted it after seeing it in the linked threat of jessicata without having seen the post before. Given that it was a subpart of the other post, it effectively was on LessWrong by that time and going to be read by people.
Without posting it here, it could have been addressed in the comments of jessicata’s post and I considered it to be likely result in better information sharing to have it as a separate post here.
From my perspective, Aella responding point to point to the allegations and then other people verifying is a good outcome of having it posted like this.
I just think that the fact itself is worth making known, especially since this linkpost does not itself mention anything like “posted on request” or “posted with permission”
I have not communicated with the author about the post and I’m not certain who the author happens to be. I would write something like “posted on request” if that’s why I’m posting.
This seems like a great use case for the two-axis voting system that’s being experimented with right now. I think Aella’s response (to what is an anonymous accusation with no hard evidence) is perfectly satisfactory, and presumably others thought so too and downvoted this or removed their upvotes to signal that. But I agree that sharing the post was good (having Aella respond is valuable), so a better outcome would have been if the post had kept moderate karma and received strong downvotes on the second axis. As-is, there’s a genuine dilemma because we don’t want to promote something that unfairly reflects poorly on someone.
I don’t think the +2 karma (one-digit positive karma) is an issue.
While it’s valuable that the discussion itself happened, it’s not valuable for anyone who browsers through LessWrong without prior interest to click through into the thread to follow it.
It’s likely good that it’s there to be linked to, but that value is different than the value a reader who hasn’t seen anything related gets.
I posted it after seeing it in the linked threat of jessicata without having seen the post before. Given that it was a subpart of the other post, it effectively was on LessWrong by that time and going to be read by people.
Without posting it here, it could have been addressed in the comments of jessicata’s post and I considered it to be likely result in better information sharing to have it as a separate post here.
From my perspective, Aella responding point to point to the allegations and then other people verifying is a good outcome of having it posted like this.
I have not communicated with the author about the post and I’m not certain who the author happens to be. I would write something like “posted on request” if that’s why I’m posting.
This seems like a great use case for the two-axis voting system that’s being experimented with right now. I think Aella’s response (to what is an anonymous accusation with no hard evidence) is perfectly satisfactory, and presumably others thought so too and downvoted this or removed their upvotes to signal that. But I agree that sharing the post was good (having Aella respond is valuable), so a better outcome would have been if the post had kept moderate karma and received strong downvotes on the second axis. As-is, there’s a genuine dilemma because we don’t want to promote something that unfairly reflects poorly on someone.
I don’t think the +2 karma (one-digit positive karma) is an issue.
While it’s valuable that the discussion itself happened, it’s not valuable for anyone who browsers through LessWrong without prior interest to click through into the thread to follow it.
It’s likely good that it’s there to be linked to, but that value is different than the value a reader who hasn’t seen anything related gets.