This is generating a lot of discussion about what Less Wrong’s should be, and proposed norms. I like this one and this one, for example.
Well, the norms of Less Wrong are currently scattered between a large number of previous posts, comments, and wiki pages. It is very difficult for a newcomer to find out what they are, and easy for long-time participants to forget about some of them.
Therefore, I propose gathering all of Less Wrong’s policies and norms into a top-level post. I also think it’s very important that the contents of that post be representative of the opinions of the Less Wrong community. With that in mind, I’m going to make a thread for gathering proposed Less Wrong norms and links to pre-existing norms. One week later, someone (not necessarily me) will take every comment which is above a score threshold, which contains a concise description of a norm, and which has not had any serious objections raised against it, add some non-substantive introductory and connecting text, and post it for posterity.
I am going to wait until Thursday evening and then post the norm-gathering thread and selection criteria. I’m waiting because the comments on that thread are likely to be quoted somewhere important, and so I think they should be the refined products of discussions that have already happened, rather than first drafts.
So, discuss away, here and in the meta thread. And know that these discussions are not hypothetical.
Therefore, I propose gathering all of Less Wrong’s policies and norms into a top-level post. I also think it’s very important that the contents of that post be representative of the opinions of the Less Wrong community. With that in mind, I’m going to make a thread for gathering proposed Less Wrong norms and links to pre-existing norms. One week later, someone (not necessarily me) will take every comment which is above a score threshold, which contains a concise description of a norm, and which has not had any serious objections raised against it, add some non-substantive introductory and connecting text, and post it for posterity.
It is extremely unlikely that I will approve of such a subject nearly as much as I approved of this post. In fact it is not unlikely that I will wholeheartedly oppose it. Creating a list of rules like this is a step in totally the wrong direction. Further, discussions in some thread will operate by a different mechanism than looking at how all the norms fit together in a non ideal context. Signalling concerns usually prevent such rules from being practical. That is, rules tend to be created that presume a naive understanding of the way systems work.
Whenever you create a system of rules (or “up-voted norm conversations posted for posterity”) they will be gamed.
I have come up with an experiment (well, an article topic) which I hope will shed some light on whether Less Wrong can handle talking about politics, and what sort of approach to use when doing so. I’m going to delay asking people what they think norms should be until after the results of that have been seen. I think the important thing is to only pull sideways, and not argue for something that people can map to a particular party or entrenched position.
I’ll test in #lesswrong to make sure I haven’t misjudged its potential for controversy, and hopefully have it ready to post on Wednesday or Thursday evening.
This is generating a lot of discussion about what Less Wrong’s should be, and proposed norms. I like this one and this one, for example.
Well, the norms of Less Wrong are currently scattered between a large number of previous posts, comments, and wiki pages. It is very difficult for a newcomer to find out what they are, and easy for long-time participants to forget about some of them.
Therefore, I propose gathering all of Less Wrong’s policies and norms into a top-level post. I also think it’s very important that the contents of that post be representative of the opinions of the Less Wrong community. With that in mind, I’m going to make a thread for gathering proposed Less Wrong norms and links to pre-existing norms. One week later, someone (not necessarily me) will take every comment which is above a score threshold, which contains a concise description of a norm, and which has not had any serious objections raised against it, add some non-substantive introductory and connecting text, and post it for posterity.
I am going to wait until Thursday evening and then post the norm-gathering thread and selection criteria. I’m waiting because the comments on that thread are likely to be quoted somewhere important, and so I think they should be the refined products of discussions that have already happened, rather than first drafts.
So, discuss away, here and in the meta thread. And know that these discussions are not hypothetical.
It is extremely unlikely that I will approve of such a subject nearly as much as I approved of this post. In fact it is not unlikely that I will wholeheartedly oppose it. Creating a list of rules like this is a step in totally the wrong direction. Further, discussions in some thread will operate by a different mechanism than looking at how all the norms fit together in a non ideal context. Signalling concerns usually prevent such rules from being practical. That is, rules tend to be created that presume a naive understanding of the way systems work.
Whenever you create a system of rules (or “up-voted norm conversations posted for posterity”) they will be gamed.
I have come up with an experiment (well, an article topic) which I hope will shed some light on whether Less Wrong can handle talking about politics, and what sort of approach to use when doing so. I’m going to delay asking people what they think norms should be until after the results of that have been seen. I think the important thing is to only pull sideways, and not argue for something that people can map to a particular party or entrenched position.
I’ll test in #lesswrong to make sure I haven’t misjudged its potential for controversy, and hopefully have it ready to post on Wednesday or Thursday evening.