How to cite LessWrong as an academic source?

post by PhilosophicalSoul (LiamLaw) · 2024-11-06T08:28:26.309Z · LW · GW · 2 comments

This is a question post.

Contents

  Answers
    9 AnthonyC
    7 avturchin
None
2 comments

Hi there.

Quick question. I am using a few articles from LessWrong for a dissertation. Are there any mainstream articles/sources that reference LessWrong as being the catalyst/partial source for AI alignment, researchers, and other academic literature? I think it's snobbish, or, discriminatory to regard LessWrong as merely another online website. I was hoping to get some advice on how to formulate a paragraph justifying the citation of LessWrong?

Thanks.

Answers

answer by AnthonyC · 2024-11-06T13:08:51.710Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I'm curious which kinds of posts you're looking to cite, for what kinds of use in a dissertation for what field. 

Looking over the site as a whole, different posts should (IMO) be regarded as akin to primary sources, news sources, non-peer-reviewed academic papers, whitepapers, symposia, textbook chapters, or professional sources, depending on the author and epidemic status.

In other words, this isn't "a site" for this purpose, it's a forum that hosts many kinds of content in a conveniently cross-referenceable format, some but not all of which is of a suitable standard for referencing for some but not all academic uses. This at least should be familiar to how your professors think about other kinds of citations. Someone might cite a doctor's published case study as part of the background research on some disease, or the NYT's publication of a summary of the pentagon papers in regards to the history of first amendment jurisprudence, or a corporate whitepaper or other report as a source of data about an industry.

↑ comment by PhilosophicalSoul (LiamLaw) · 2024-11-06T17:02:49.290Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

AI alignment mostly; seeking to bridge the gap between AI and law. Since LW has unique takes, and often serves as the origin point for ideas on alignment (even if they aren't cited by mainstream authors). Whether this site's purpose is to be cited or not is debatable. On a pragmatic level though, there's simply discussions here that can't be found anywhere else.

Replies from: AnthonyC
↑ comment by AnthonyC · 2024-11-06T22:48:38.695Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

Depending on the posts I think you could argue they're comparable to one of thosebother source types I listed.

answer by avturchin · 2024-11-06T12:51:43.408Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

I cited it as a blog. This option is available on Zotero.

2 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Shankar Sivarajan (shankar-sivarajan) · 2024-11-06T21:50:35.397Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is a little like the case of the Haruhi Problem, where a significant advance regarding the number of superpermutations was made by an anonymous poster on 4chan. In that case, the ephemerality of the post was a reasonable concern, and the solution was someone reposted the proof on ArXiv OEIS (with "Anonymous 4chan Poster" as the first author), and then cited that.

Here, you have a fixed url, so you could just follow the established conventions for citing webpages. I don't think you need any special justification for it, nor do you need to treat this as anything other than "merely another online website" (you don't think it's "snobbish or discriminatory" to pretend it's something more because you count yourself among its users?). 

Replies from: LiamLaw
↑ comment by PhilosophicalSoul (LiamLaw) · 2024-11-07T07:29:28.238Z · LW(p) · GW(p)

you don't think it's "snobbish or discriminatory" to pretend it's something more because you count yourself among its users?

 

Fair point. I had already provided special justification for it but I agree with your reasoning, so I'll leave it out. Thanks for the example.