META: Which posts are appropriate for the articles section vs. the discussion section?
post by lukeprog · 2011-01-28T20:27:21.974Z · LW · GW · Legacy · 4 commentsShould my post be sent to the discussion section or the articles section of Less Wrong? The published guidelines are slim.
Clearly, the following should be sent to discussion:
- Links
- Posts lacking the clarity, importance, and writing quality expected of front-page articles
- Quick, informal comments or questions
The articles section is intended for major announcements, meetup announcements, and posts about "refining the art of human rationality" (or AI, probably) that exhibit "substantive new content, clear argument, good writing, popularity, and importance."
Yet, some have requested clearer guidelines than this. For example, my article Back to the Basics of Rationality was somewhat of a "meta" post, and AnnaSalomon suggested it be moved to the discussion section, but shortly thereafter it was promoted to the front page and up-voted to 69 points.
Eliezer requested that meta posts on the front page be kept to a minimum, but not to zero. Maybe that's close enough to a guideline. But consider these issues:
- I'm writing a CliffsNotes summary of David Chalmers article "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis." The subject matter is appropriate, the paper is important and recent, and the post will be well-written and well-sourced. But there's nothing in the post that is original. Is this appropriate for the articles section?
- What's the policy on publishing sequences? Those require a large investment from the author, and may not always end up being completed unless they are fully written in advance of publishing the first post in the sequence.
- Besides rationality, AI, and the Less Wrong community, what topics are appropriate for the articles section? My recent overview of scientific self-help is one of the most up-voted posts in the history of LW, and has a strong link to instrumental rationality, but is otherwise somewhat outside the usual subject matter of LW. Political posts are discouraged, but what subjects should be allowed?
Thoughts?
4 comments
Comments sorted by top scores.
comment by jimrandomh · 2011-01-29T00:00:30.147Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
The real difference that seems to have arisen between main-section posts and Discussion posts is actually length and completeness. Drafts, short summaries of links, and questions go in discussion; finished full-length articles go in the main section. A summary would be front-page material if it was longer than about 500 words.
Policy-wise, publishing a sequence isn't any different than publishing each of the pieces. What's considered on-topic is somewhat ambiguous, but posts on any topic will be upvoted if they are sufficiently interesting, well written, and utility-affecting. Self-help stuff is well received because of that last one: reading about it here on Less Wrong has strongly positive utility (but reading about it in most other places doesn't, because it's too difficult to sort through the noise).
comment by JGWeissman · 2011-01-28T21:13:24.198Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
What's the policy on publishingsequences? Those require a large investment from the author, and may not always end up being completed unless they are fully written in advance of publishing the first post in the sequence.
People have written sequences, some have been abandoned do to lack of audience appreciation, or the author running out of steam. I think this is OK.
comment by JGWeissman · 2011-01-28T21:08:22.363Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I'm writing a CliffsNotes summary of David Chalmers article "The Singularity: A Philosophical Analysis." The subject matter is appropriate, the paper is important and recent, and the post will be well-written and well-sourced. But there's nothing in the post that isoriginal. Is this appropriate for the articles section?
It seems to me that summaries, critiques, and other substantial derived works of relevant source materials outside of LW are appropiate for the front page.
comment by free_rip · 2011-01-29T03:14:04.301Z · LW(p) · GW(p)
I don't know about the rest of it, but with the summary of David Chalmers article, while it's not original, it's original (or perhaps 'new' would be better) to LW. As in, if it's discussing ideas that could promote new thinking in LW, I think it qualifies for the articles section.
You wouldn't want the whole main page clogged with summaries, especially those where the article itself could simply be linked, but a few seems okay.
Just my personal thoughts, not based on any guidelines other than the ones listed here.