= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
NancyLebovitz comments on Proposed New Features for Less Wrong - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (169)
One of the reasons LW is intimidating to new users is that some of them believe they need to read all the sequences before they post.
If there's a subset which would be generally considered to be enough, it should be posted.
A glossary would be nice, even if it consists of links to essays from the sequences.
I haven't seen evidence to support the "load of crackpots" theory, though I suppose tying improving the art of rationality to FAI could have that effect. So might putting effort into highly implausible scenarios, though I personally see that as philosophy geeking rather than crackpottery.
The general intimidation problem is hard because people aren't reliably good at evaluating their skill level.
Very tentatively offered: if we can define the skills needed to do valuable posts and comments, this might help some potential posters decide whether they want to dive in.
I find it plausible that newcomers think these people are a load of crackpots, since I am not a newcomer and even I think these people are a load of crackpots.
I think it's the belief in the Singularity and cryonics which come off badly.
You're probably right. I'm so used to science fiction fandom that I didn't even notice.
I read the replies to the "Attention Lurkers" post.
I was surprised at what a strong theme it was, since I don't think LW is intimidating.
I should have said earlier that I do think maintaining the high quality of LW is important, and the plus side of "intimidating" is having people focused on improving rationality and actually working on it.
When someone says they're afraid to post, it's hard to tell whether they have an accurate understanding that they don't know enough to contribute or are habitually cautious about speaking up even if they do have something to contribute..
Although I don't know if many/most of the lurkers have waded all the way through the current version of the FAQ, some of them may believe they need to read all of the sequences before they post because the FAQ says they do. In fact, the FAQ suggests reading the sequences before even reading Less Wrong:
This is a pretty high barrier to entry. I agree that we should encourage reading the sequences, but should we phrase it in another way so that we still welcome participation?
Maybe there is a way for new readers to ask for advice on what particular portions of the sequences would be most helpful for them to read in order to be able to contribute good comments/posts in their particular areas of interest.
edit: the FAQ is undergoing revisions as I write, and the language in the current version is somewhat more welcoming. But it's still worth discussing how high we should set the barrier to entry.
I think that barrier is about right. We do welcome participation, but only from people who have taken the trouble to find out, from the material we direct them to, what we're about.
I've seen similar language on several technical discussion forums: people are asked to read the FAQs and not to retread old ground.
I have also seen similar language on other sites, but the the sequences are a lot longer than what I have seen other sites asking new visitors to read.
I had read OB when EY still used to blog there, so I read a lot of the sequences at that time. Stretched out over time like that, they don't seem as long. But for a brand new visitor, the sheer volume is somewhat daunting. That's why I think more nuanced suggestions, perhaps like Jack suggests here, might make sense.