Less Wrong policy questions

post by diegocaleiro · 2011-01-04T20:27:49.228Z · score: 6 (7 votes) · LW · GW · Legacy · 8 comments

I have a few questions, mostly on which kinds of content can or cannot be posted to Less Wrong.

 

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?

2) What if the paper had been written by me?

3) What if it was a blog post from another blog?

4) Videos and images are allowed?

5) Should all Meta-level discussion be posted under the "Discussion" or are there kinds of Meta welcome in the Main Posts?

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?       Why not? 

 

8 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by wedrifid · 2011-01-04T22:54:50.131Z · score: 7 (7 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

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'!

Why not?

Because you haven't done it yet!

comment by diegocaleiro · 2011-01-05T04:02:07.004Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

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.

comment by wedrifid · 2011-01-05T04:20:06.151Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

But then this would require perusing through all of it

Why? It seems to me that it would take however long the editor chose to spend. He need not complete the task!

comment by diegocaleiro · 2011-01-05T09:28:04.325Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Consider the cost of doing this if you have already read it versus if you didn't.

comment by wedrifid · 2011-01-05T09:44:16.472Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

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.

comment by ata · 2011-01-04T20:42:31.642Z · score: 3 (3 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

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?

2) What if the paper had been written by me?

3) What if it was a blog post from another blog?

All of that would be fine in the Discussion section. If you had written the paper or blog post, and it was something that would be considered on-topic for main LW anyway, then you could post it on main LW. (The particular paper you linked, although it is of interest to many LW users, would probably be considered too redundant over existing material for a top-level main post.)

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?

We previously had quarterly meta threads, but since the Open Threads have now been replaced by (and sometimes posted in) the Discussion section, the same may be appropriate for meta content.

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? Why not?

A couple of non-Yudkowsky sequences have been added to the Sequences page — Alicorn's Luminosity sequence, and Anna Salamon's incomplete sequence on decision theory. Other than that, I don't know of any collections of posts that were intended to be read as sequences. (I think someone else started a decision theory sequence, but moved it to an external blog after the first few posts.)

comment by Kaj_Sotala · 2011-01-05T08:35:20.761Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Other than that, I don't know of any collections of posts that were intended to be read as sequences.

There was my What Intelligence Tests Miss mini-sequence.

comment by Larks · 2011-01-05T01:40:48.765Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

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? Why not?

Try the 'Top' tag, just below the page header. It's biased towards new posts, but it's hard to go wrong with a post that earned the author 1,500 karma.