= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
JoshuaZ comments on Who owns LessWrong? - 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 (83)
As far as I know, this is the first edit-fight between humans to take place on the LW wiki, and no procedure for resolving edit-fights is currently in place. I don't think framing this is a matter of ownership is quite right; we'd be having approximately the same discussion no matter who did the edit and reversion. It's worth noting that Wikipedia has been struggling with this issue for its entire lifetime, and ended up with a situation that people seem mostly unhappy with.
The best outcome would be for some neutral writer to step in, receive support from both of you, and then adjust the article to accurately reflect the consensus(es) and controversy(ies), in that order.
As for the object-level discussion about group selection, I think it's fairly obvious that group selection does happen sometimes, but there should be a very strong prior against attributing any particular trait to it.
Yes. The English Wikipedia has a set of solutions for this that a lot of people are unhappy with. And then you look at what other wikis have tried to do, and you realize that their methods create even more serious problems and that if you tried to scale them to something of the size of the English Wikipedia disaster would ensue.
This is very much not an endorsement of Wikipedia approaches to the Less Wrong wiki. The purpose is very different, the community is much more narrow, and the total size is much smaller by many orders of magnitude.