JenniferRM comments on Who owns LessWrong? - Less Wrong

6 Post author: PhilGoetz 29 September 2011 04:22PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (83)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: jimrandomh 29 September 2011 09:04:53PM 24 points [-]

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.

Comment author: JenniferRM 30 September 2011 01:03:55AM 14 points [-]

I wish there was a way to transfer karma between LW users because all kinds of awesome social hacks become possible with point transfers. Like cake cutting algorithms :-)

For example, each person could privately commit to a karma amount they would be willing to either pay or receive in exchange for getting their way or not for a period of time (say the next six months of wiki time), the high bidder gets their way and transfers the average of the bids to the low bidder, with a public note in the transfer logs that cross references the relevant wiki page and revision. Eliezer would rightfully dominate such transactions, if he cared enough, but the facts of each case would accumulate publicly, and the basis for his preferences receiving weight would flow from the natural fact of his substantial positive contributions to the community.

Comment author: Kevin 30 September 2011 04:15:22AM 1 point [-]

+100 for wanting to allow karma transfers!!!