A little proposal for what top-level posts should be allowed:
A post is allowed if it’s on-topic, not highly objectionable, and competently done. A post is considered on-topic iff it’s one of the following:
Something that advances the topic of rationality, where “rationality” means general ways of being less wrong in any field (or possibly a particular field), or of taking actions that are less wrong. We’re relatively uninterested in being more right.
Information about a topic about which the Less Wrong community would probably like to learn.
A monthly thread originally proposed, or seconded, by someone else, which you were not the latest person to create.
Something exceptional that you are not deeply involved in.
Note to self: “more” is a red word and “right” is an orange word.
Most posts on here would fall under the first category. The first category was made to exclude things like general posts about quantum mechanics, which are specific to a particular field, though I also tried to include posts specifically related to rationality in quantum mechanics. The second category goes and directly includes general posts about quantum mechanics, but I’ve tried to make it more restrictive, covering only “information about” these topics rather than useful things that aren’t information (e.g. questions and suggestions). The third category, obviously, covers monthly threads, and tries to keep them useful. The fourth category, obviously, is a catch-all, and I’ve made it to exclude stuff like “please come and volunteer for us; you’ll like it”.
So, yes, I’ve stuck my own opinions into it, and this is probably a pretty conservative list. Discuss.
So, yes, I’ve stuck my own opinions into it, and this is probably a pretty conservative list. Discuss.
I’m nonplussed. This is, as more or less described, a formalisation of your intuitive reaction to various posts. I don’t share your intuitions regarding off topicness and, in particular, the ‘please come and volunteer for us’ example is on topic by my standards. Since formalising which posts are on topic doesn’t seem particularly vital to me I reject your proposal to the extent that it seeks to embody your preferences into a general norm.
Here are the options as I see them. This list should not be seen to be exhaustive.
We rely solely on the karma/voting system. The posts which are on-topic are those which are upvoted—on-topicness is thus a quality determined by the number of readers who believe a post is on-topic and of sufficient quality (either in and of itself or by virtue of the attached comment thread).
We rely on the Editor’s discretion. Those which are on-topic are the posts which he decides not to hide from the feed.
We make the feed more dynamic—something akin to reddit’s front page schema, where you can filter your front page by subreddit, hide posts from a certain user, etc.
Personally, I would love for #3 to be implemented—but LW may not be big enough for it to be effective (e.g. we have no “subreddits”, only tags)
In any case, I do think we need to state our policy. As it is, I Eliezer’s plan seems to be to make up policy on the fly and introduce what I think are rather ad hoc (not to mention ineffective) “vote up if you would approve of this” comments.
A little proposal for what top-level posts should be allowed:
A post is allowed if it’s on-topic, not highly objectionable, and competently done. A post is considered on-topic iff it’s one of the following:
Something that advances the topic of rationality, where “rationality” means general ways of being less wrong in any field (or possibly a particular field), or of taking actions that are less wrong. We’re relatively uninterested in being more right.
Information about a topic about which the Less Wrong community would probably like to learn.
A monthly thread originally proposed, or seconded, by someone else, which you were not the latest person to create.
Something exceptional that you are not deeply involved in.
Note to self: “more” is a red word and “right” is an orange word.
Most posts on here would fall under the first category. The first category was made to exclude things like general posts about quantum mechanics, which are specific to a particular field, though I also tried to include posts specifically related to rationality in quantum mechanics. The second category goes and directly includes general posts about quantum mechanics, but I’ve tried to make it more restrictive, covering only “information about” these topics rather than useful things that aren’t information (e.g. questions and suggestions). The third category, obviously, covers monthly threads, and tries to keep them useful. The fourth category, obviously, is a catch-all, and I’ve made it to exclude stuff like “please come and volunteer for us; you’ll like it”.
So, yes, I’ve stuck my own opinions into it, and this is probably a pretty conservative list. Discuss.
I’m nonplussed. This is, as more or less described, a formalisation of your intuitive reaction to various posts. I don’t share your intuitions regarding off topicness and, in particular, the ‘please come and volunteer for us’ example is on topic by my standards. Since formalising which posts are on topic doesn’t seem particularly vital to me I reject your proposal to the extent that it seeks to embody your preferences into a general norm.
Here are the options as I see them. This list should not be seen to be exhaustive.
We rely solely on the karma/voting system. The posts which are on-topic are those which are upvoted—on-topicness is thus a quality determined by the number of readers who believe a post is on-topic and of sufficient quality (either in and of itself or by virtue of the attached comment thread).
We rely on the Editor’s discretion. Those which are on-topic are the posts which he decides not to hide from the feed.
We make the feed more dynamic—something akin to reddit’s front page schema, where you can filter your front page by subreddit, hide posts from a certain user, etc.
Personally, I would love for #3 to be implemented—but LW may not be big enough for it to be effective (e.g. we have no “subreddits”, only tags)
In any case, I do think we need to state our policy. As it is, I Eliezer’s plan seems to be to make up policy on the fly and introduce what I think are rather ad hoc (not to mention ineffective) “vote up if you would approve of this” comments.