I wonder what is the optimal reaction to situations like that. My first idea is to collectively prepare a response at Less Wrong, which could then be posted on the article talk page. The response would be relatively brief, list the factual errors, and optionally propose suggestions along with references.
Collectively, because it will be easier for Wikipedia editors to engage with one summary input from our community, rather that several people making partial comments independently. Also, because the quality of the response could be higher if e.g. someone notices an error, someone else finds a reference supporting the complaint, and maybe another person helps to make the entire argument more compatible with the Wikipedia rules.
Also, someone may be wrong about something, or something can be ambiguous. Like, I keep wondering about the statement that the rationality community formed around LW and SSC. LW, sure. But Scott was posting on LW since 2009, and when he started SSC in 2013, I would say the rationality community had already been formed, albeit much smaller than it is now. SSC as a separate blog actually attracted non-rationalist audience to Scott’s writing, and Scott often posted there things that wouldn’t fit on LW back then, such as jokes and fiction. And even today, I think that only a minority of ACX readers identifies as aspiring rationalists. More often, they make fun of rationalists.
It took me a while to figure out that “common interests include statistics” probably refers to Bayesianism. At least I think so. Isn’t it weird that I am not sure about one of our most important common interests?
“CFAR teaches courses based on HPMOR”; I think the causality is probably in the opposite direction.
“rationalists also hold the view that [...] information hazards, are dangerous and should be suppressed. [...] the writings of Ziz LaSota are commonly cited information hazards among rationalists”; when you put it together like this, that strongly suggests that rationalists believe that Ziz’s blog should be suppressed, but I have never heard such proposal.
I find it interesting that post-rationalists are described as people who perceive the rationality community as cult-like, when my impression was that original objection was about the community not paying sufficient respect to ancient wisdom, especially religion.
(Let me guess, this is going to be linked from Wikipedia as “Viliam proposes brigading, be very careful and during the next 100 days revert all changes to the page, and make sure to lock the talk page”.)
EDIT: I am curious how Wikipedia editors decide who is and who isn’t a member of the rationalist community. For example, Zizians are referred to as rationalists (not “ex-rationalists”), so… once a rationalist, always a rationalist?
EDIT: I am curious how Wikipedia editors decide who is and who isn’t a member of the rationalist community. For example, Zizians are referred to as rationalists (not “ex-rationalists”), so… once a rationalist, always a rationalist?
I see a subtle distinction there, between “a member of the rationalist community” and “a rationalist”.
I would say the latter is “someone who has thinking strategies and acting strategies that enable them to have more beneficial and complex things”—or, for more verifiability, “someone whose thinking&acting strategies are worth copying”. Using the second definition, I would not claim nor disclaim being a rationalist because my strategies are mostly [native code] which cannot be copied so easily. In any case, it is not possible to disavow someone being a rationalist because that statement is mostly about them.
The former, “a member of the rationalist community”, is essentially “someone who keeps in contact with the specific community, exchanges ideas, favors and so on”. That is possible to “excommunicate”.
Thinking/acting style: “mainstream rationality” or “x-rationality”.
Social behavior: ignores the LW community entirely, reads the website, posts on the website, attends meetups, meet other rationalists even outside meetups, lives in a group house.
Identity: identifies as a “rationalist”, or just “someone who hangs out with rationalists, but is not one of them”.
And even this is not clear. Using Zizians as an example, they are clearly inspired by some memes in the LW community, but they also clearly reject some other memes (such as ethical injunctions), are they “x-rationalists” by thinking style? They used to live in the Bay Area and recruit among the rationalists, but they also protested against MIRI and CFAR, were they members of the community at that moment? No idea whether they identified as “rationalists” or whatever else.
The Zizians are a small, renegade, spin-off group with an ideological emphasis on veganism and anarchism, which became well known in 2025 for being suspected of involvement in four murders. The Zizians originally formed around the Bay Area rationalist community, but became disillusioned with other rationalist organizations and leaders. Among the Zizians’ accusations against them were anti-transgender discrimination, misuse of donor funds to pay off a sexual misconduct accuser, and not valuing animal welfare in plans for human-friendly AI.
I am actually quite okay with this. It mentions the important things: “spin-off group” (i.e. their membership is a history), “veganism and anarchism” (their motivations other than rationalism). The only way I can imagine it better from my perspective would be to add more years to make it clear that their participation in the community was 2014-2019, and the murders 2022-2025 (i.e. no overlap).
The part I don’t like is the introduction to the “Zizians” article, which starts with:
The Zizians are an informal group of rationalists with anarchist and vegan beliefs
With the word “rationalists” pointing to the “Rationalist community” article. You see the rhetorical trick: anarchism and veganism are their beliefs, but rationalists is what they are. The sentence does not claim explicitly that they are members of the community (as opposed to just someone trying to be more rational), but that’s where the hyperlink points at. Also, the present tense.
This all is a spin; one could equally validly say e.g. “Zizians are an informal group of anarchist vegans who have met each other during the years they spent in the rationality community.”
I wonder what is the optimal reaction to situations like that. My first idea is to collectively prepare a response at Less Wrong, which could then be posted on the article talk page. The response would be relatively brief, list the factual errors, and optionally propose suggestions along with references.
Collectively, because it will be easier for Wikipedia editors to engage with one summary input from our community, rather that several people making partial comments independently. Also, because the quality of the response could be higher if e.g. someone notices an error, someone else finds a reference supporting the complaint, and maybe another person helps to make the entire argument more compatible with the Wikipedia rules.
Also, someone may be wrong about something, or something can be ambiguous. Like, I keep wondering about the statement that the rationality community formed around LW and SSC. LW, sure. But Scott was posting on LW since 2009, and when he started SSC in 2013, I would say the rationality community had already been formed, albeit much smaller than it is now. SSC as a separate blog actually attracted non-rationalist audience to Scott’s writing, and Scott often posted there things that wouldn’t fit on LW back then, such as jokes and fiction. And even today, I think that only a minority of ACX readers identifies as aspiring rationalists. More often, they make fun of rationalists.
It took me a while to figure out that “common interests include statistics” probably refers to Bayesianism. At least I think so. Isn’t it weird that I am not sure about one of our most important common interests?
“CFAR teaches courses based on HPMOR”; I think the causality is probably in the opposite direction.
“rationalists also hold the view that [...] information hazards, are dangerous and should be suppressed. [...] the writings of Ziz LaSota are commonly cited information hazards among rationalists”; when you put it together like this, that strongly suggests that rationalists believe that Ziz’s blog should be suppressed, but I have never heard such proposal.
I find it interesting that post-rationalists are described as people who perceive the rationality community as cult-like, when my impression was that original objection was about the community not paying sufficient respect to ancient wisdom, especially religion.
(Let me guess, this is going to be linked from Wikipedia as “Viliam proposes brigading, be very careful and during the next 100 days revert all changes to the page, and make sure to lock the talk page”.)
EDIT: I am curious how Wikipedia editors decide who is and who isn’t a member of the rationalist community. For example, Zizians are referred to as rationalists (not “ex-rationalists”), so… once a rationalist, always a rationalist?
I see a subtle distinction there, between “a member of the rationalist community” and “a rationalist”.
I would say the latter is “someone who has thinking strategies and acting strategies that enable them to have more beneficial and complex things”—or, for more verifiability, “someone whose thinking&acting strategies are worth copying”. Using the second definition, I would not claim nor disclaim being a rationalist because my strategies are mostly [native code] which cannot be copied so easily. In any case, it is not possible to disavow someone being a rationalist because that statement is mostly about them.
The former, “a member of the rationalist community”, is essentially “someone who keeps in contact with the specific community, exchanges ideas, favors and so on”. That is possible to “excommunicate”.
Even more distinctions are possible...
Thinking/acting style: “mainstream rationality” or “x-rationality”.
Social behavior: ignores the LW community entirely, reads the website, posts on the website, attends meetups, meet other rationalists even outside meetups, lives in a group house.
Identity: identifies as a “rationalist”, or just “someone who hangs out with rationalists, but is not one of them”.
And even this is not clear. Using Zizians as an example, they are clearly inspired by some memes in the LW community, but they also clearly reject some other memes (such as ethical injunctions), are they “x-rationalists” by thinking style? They used to live in the Bay Area and recruit among the rationalists, but they also protested against MIRI and CFAR, were they members of the community at that moment? No idea whether they identified as “rationalists” or whatever else.
I am actually quite okay with this. It mentions the important things: “spin-off group” (i.e. their membership is a history), “veganism and anarchism” (their motivations other than rationalism). The only way I can imagine it better from my perspective would be to add more years to make it clear that their participation in the community was 2014-2019, and the murders 2022-2025 (i.e. no overlap).
The part I don’t like is the introduction to the “Zizians” article, which starts with:
With the word “rationalists” pointing to the “Rationalist community” article. You see the rhetorical trick: anarchism and veganism are their beliefs, but rationalists is what they are. The sentence does not claim explicitly that they are members of the community (as opposed to just someone trying to be more rational), but that’s where the hyperlink points at. Also, the present tense.
This all is a spin; one could equally validly say e.g. “Zizians are an informal group of anarchist vegans who have met each other during the years they spent in the rationality community.”