= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Annoyance comments on Playing Video Games In Shuffle Mode - 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 (29)
The idea of a Rationality Wiki, I think, has considerable merit. Specific pages could be offered in a sequence as a learn-as-you-go method of teaching. A how-to, so to speak.
The major problem is that I don't think there's enough of a consensus for anything to be taught coherently, much less the correct models and methods involved.
At this point in time, I don't think a teaching wiki would be very productive. Wikis work well for topics that can be broken into small, independent chunks. I'm basing this judgment off broad comparisons between wikipedia vs wikibooks. More book-like and structured wikis require more devoted editors, and the strong contributors like Eliezer and Yvain are probably going to want to put their energy into this site for the time being.
The one variation I think does have a good chance of flourishing alongside OB and LW would be a rationalist dictionary. I mentioned this early on, but didn't get any comments then. If a beginner can have a reference for terminology, common phrases, and acronyms, most of the posts should be accessible. It could also be a standard place to post syllabi. OB and LW are the best sources to learn from right now, but they do need a reference guide.
A rationality wiki based on distributed source control, so we can all accept whichever changes we like? Saves a lot of fighting...
Isn't it enough to just accept a sort of NPOV convention? People can disagree that "you should practice lying" but they can hardly disagree that "some people have argued you should practice lying".
That's not much good as a guide to action, then, is it?
When the issue being discussed is how we can justify claims, no actual assertion can be 'neutral' in the Wikipedia sense, because even the statement that some position has been taken falls under question.
I'd respond to this but I can't prove that you said it.
I suppose it depends on whether you want the wiki to function as a source of ideas or as an actual authority to defer to.