1) Suppose I’d like everyone to comment on this paper, is it okay to just link to it, give an oppinion, and ask for others?
Yes. (At least a sentence or three of opinion or general explanation of why it is interesting is encouraged.)
2) What if the paper had been written by me?
Yes. (And if you wish to encourage more interest consider reposting some of the actual content directly.)
3) What if it was a blog post from another blog?
Treat the same as a paper.
4) Videos and images are allowed?
Yes.
5) Should all Meta-level discussion be posted under the “Discussion” or are there kinds of Meta welcome in the Main Posts?
The fact that it seemed right to call it “Meta-level discussion” probably answers that for you. ;)
6) Is there any sequence of posts from the post-Yudkowsky era that have been collected into a Cohesive Extrapoleted Less-Wrongness so that people who just finished the sequences can go right to them?
Some of the sequences in the wiki list are post Yudkowsky. Apart from that the PY posts are often stand alone. It is somewhat unfortunate that the ‘Sequences’ link doesn’t include stand alone posts. ‘Quality background material’ is more important than ‘in a sequence’!
Indeed that was exactly what I was thinking. Doing it. But then this would require perusing through all of it, a very exciting, but practically unfeasible task in worth-while time.
Less, but only slightly. Click on the recent posts link and browse through and read all the posts with more than 70 votes. Time taken is negligibly different to just reading the posts. In fact it is exactly what I would end up doing if I were to do a collation, despite the fact that I have read most of them.
Obviously once you run out of low hanging fruit (+70 votes posts) there would still be good content to find that would require more discretion and searching.
The advantage of making the list as someone who hasn’t read it all before is that at least the process is more directly useful and potentially interesting.
Yes. (At least a sentence or three of opinion or general explanation of why it is interesting is encouraged.)
Yes. (And if you wish to encourage more interest consider reposting some of the actual content directly.)
Treat the same as a paper.
4) Videos and images are allowed?
Yes.
The fact that it seemed right to call it “Meta-level discussion” probably answers that for you. ;)
Some of the sequences in the wiki list are post Yudkowsky. Apart from that the PY posts are often stand alone. It is somewhat unfortunate that the ‘Sequences’ link doesn’t include stand alone posts. ‘Quality background material’ is more important than ‘in a sequence’!
Because you haven’t done it yet!
Indeed that was exactly what I was thinking. Doing it. But then this would require perusing through all of it, a very exciting, but practically unfeasible task in worth-while time.
Why? It seems to me that it would take however long the editor chose to spend. He need not complete the task!
Consider the cost of doing this if you have already read it versus if you didn’t.
Less, but only slightly. Click on the recent posts link and browse through and read all the posts with more than 70 votes. Time taken is negligibly different to just reading the posts. In fact it is exactly what I would end up doing if I were to do a collation, despite the fact that I have read most of them.
Obviously once you run out of low hanging fruit (+70 votes posts) there would still be good content to find that would require more discretion and searching.
The advantage of making the list as someone who hasn’t read it all before is that at least the process is more directly useful and potentially interesting.