TheManxLoiner's Shortform
post by TheManxLoiner · 2024-12-20T10:30:14.908Z · LW · GW · 5 commentsContents
5 comments
5 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by TheManxLoiner · 2024-12-20T10:30:15.026Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Should LessWrong have an anonymous mode? When reading a post or comments, is it useful to have the username or does that introduce bias?
I had this thought after reading this review of LessWrong: https://nathanpmyoung.substack.com/p/lesswrong-expectations-vs-reality
↑ comment by Said Achmiz (SaidAchmiz) · 2024-12-20T18:46:59.878Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
Note that GreaterWrong has an anti-kibitzer mode [LW · GW].
↑ comment by Dagon · 2024-12-20T16:37:26.178Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I vote no. An option for READERS to hid the names of posters/commenters might be nice, but an option to post something that you're unwilling to have a name on (not even your real name, just a tag with some history and karma) does not improve things.
Replies from: jbash, Viliam↑ comment by jbash · 2024-12-20T18:07:27.852Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
There is an option for readers to hide names. It's in the account preferences. The names don't show up unless you roll over them. I use it, to supplement my long-cultivated habit of always trying to read the content before the author name on every site[1].
As for anonymous posts, I don't agree with your blanket dismissal. I've seen them work against groupthink on some forums (while often at the same time increasing the number of low-value posts you have to wade through). Admittedly Less Wrong doesn't seem to have too much of a groupthink problem[2]. Anyway, there could always be an option for readers to hide anonymous posts.