betterthanwell comments on Less Wrong and non-native English speakers - Less Wrong

28 Post author: kilobug 06 November 2011 01:37PM

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

Comments (43)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: betterthanwell 06 November 2011 06:54:37PM *  11 points [-]

If one does not speak much English at all,
then one should probably play in a different sandbox.

I would not discuss philosophy in Chinese, because I do not know the language. If there was a sufficiently awesome website in Chinese, then perhaps I could be inspired to learn the language. Perhaps I could return, and participate later.

Less Wrong has lower tolerance for sloppy thinking and sloppy writing than most other playgrounds on the Internet. This is great for at least two reasons. A high bar for entry helps weed out trolls. A high bar for entry gives one an incentive to improve.

The allergy to sloppiness likely harkens back to the unique and interesting moderation policy of Eliezer Yudkowsky's SL4.org, and its mailing list. Compared to SL4, Less Wrong is a welcoming and friendly place.

Because SL4 is liable to die quite soon, because many readers will not be familiar with it, and because the moderation policy includes some good writing advice, I find it pertinent to quote an excerpt here:

Our high standards:

It is the explicit policy of this list not to rehash the basics. SL4 is for advanced topics in futurism and technology. If we've discussed it once before, or if it's something we think posters should already know, you may be courteously referred to the archives, or to another list.

Check your spelling. Check your grammar. Check your punctuation and capitalization. Use apostrophes and commas. Don't quote entire messages in your reply. Don't use HTML. Don't post one-line replies. (If it's not worth a well-written paragraph, is it really worth posting?) Don't send attachments to the list. Around 200 people read this (as of September '02), so if it takes you one minute to save each reader two seconds, you've saved well over six minutes total.

Lurk for a week or read a few archived messages before you begin posting.

This is a science-literate mailing list. If you're still unclear about whether humans evolved or were planted on Earth by flying saucers, you're welcome to read SL4, but you probably won't like what you read, and your first post will probably be your last. There could be an exception to this rule. We just haven't encountered it yet.

Sniper-based moderation

"I had assumed that the function of a moderator was more akin to a sheepdog herding the outlying members than a sniper picking off the fringe." -- Mike Deering inadvertantly sums up SL4's exact philosophy of moderation.

English is not my mother tongue. As a non-native English user, I feel that my English mastery is good enough for most everywhere on the Internet other than Less Wrong.

It is frustrating to be called out on silly mistakes you would never make in your native language. Seize the opportunity to level up in English, be hard on yourself, use reference tools, and your fluency will slowly increase. Near-fluency will give way to fluency, you will be better off from the effort.

SUGGESTION: For speakers of foreign tongues who want to improve, maybe add an "editorial input solicited" - tag. As a signal that you welcome the picking of nits and other improvements. A "Crocker's Rules" of wordcraft? If there was one I would happily apply it to this reply.

"Editorial input solicited" is perhaps not a super catchy term. Better suggestions are welcome.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 November 2011 07:30:30PM *  8 points [-]

This allergy toward sloppiness harkens back to the unique and interesting moderation policy of Eliezer Yudkowsky's SL4.org, and its mailing list. Compared to SL4, Less Wrong is a welcoming and friendly place.

(Actual quality of discussion on SL4 was significantly worse, so this seems to be a fake explanation.)

Comment author: steven0461 06 November 2011 09:24:03PM *  1 point [-]

Actual quality of discussion on SL4 was significantly worse

Worse total or worse per comment?

Worse considering what ideas were available at the time or worse regardless?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 06 November 2011 09:37:38PM 2 points [-]

Without controlling for anything, including topic selection. Worse general impression (which I can't easily parse in terms of "per comment"), significant portion of low quality comments (comments that bad are rare here), and less high quality participation (but then, overall volume was smaller as well).

Comment author: Logos01 07 November 2011 08:14:28AM -1 points [-]

and less high quality participation (but then, overall volume was smaller as well).

Don't underestimate the impact of voting mechanisms in their ability to screen out poorer-quality discussion. (As someone who is frequently downvoted on LW, I can state from personal experience that while this is often done persistently on the basis of individual sentiment rather than in terms of contribution to the dialogue, the impact is relatively equivalent either way: by seeing the opinions of others to the comments of others, we learn how to better sculpt our own comments.)

Comment author: TheOtherDave 06 November 2011 07:58:07PM 4 points [-]

Well, OK, since you asked: should be "you will be better off from the effort"

Comment author: betterthanwell 06 November 2011 08:26:48PM 2 points [-]

I had written off as of. How sloppy of me. Thanks for your assistance.

Comment author: Nectanebo 07 November 2011 03:17:58PM 2 points [-]

The "Crocker's Rules" of wordcraft is a great suggestion, it would be of great use to anyone who may be less confident with their English. It may help people who may not be as willing to post to become less timid as it acts in a way as a disclaimer of English ability.

I know that I personally spent a lot of time lurking before posting due to my lack of confidence that I would be able to contribute effectively due to a number of reasons, but this suggestion could definitely reduce that list of reasons for other unconfident lurkers by one; a positive step for welcoming more potential rationalists into the community.

I definitely think this is a valuable concept to expand on. A catchier term would be great, or perhaps abbreviations could become commonplace some time in the future. Perhaps someone could even be able to engineer the site so that people could choose to display an icon next to their name if they welcomed such input?

Comment author: cadac 07 November 2011 08:52:22PM 1 point [-]

Wouldn't this create a lot of annoying clutter in threads? Maybe create a dedicated discussion post where people correct the posts of people who invoked Crocker's Rules of wordcraft. This would probably require that whoever corrects a mistake also sends a PM to the non-native speaker in question.

(I'm happy if anyone corrects my posts.)

Comment author: betterthanwell 07 November 2011 10:36:42PM 1 point [-]

Receiving a couple of suggestions for minor corrections made me realise the same thing. Discussions will bulk up with suggestions that are useful to the recipient. Enough of these could add more perceived noise to the comments than they will improve the signal of the target post. Private messaging the poster avoids this. But is less rewarding than to point out other peoples mistakes in public.

Comment author: dlthomas 07 November 2011 11:11:06PM 1 point [-]

A straightforward approach might be a means of tagging comments, and filtering/searching based on tags? That way, if I want the substance of the conversation I can filter out wordsmithery, and if I am looking to improve my writing I can see what suggestions others needed?

Comment author: fortyeridania 06 November 2011 11:20:40PM 1 point [-]

I like your suggestion.

Here's another point:

For speakers of foreign tongues, who want to improve,

Cut the first comma to make your clause restrictive.

(In standard usage, the phrase as written implies that all speakers of foreign tongues want to improve; without a comma, it refers only to those speakers of foreign tongues who actually want to improve.