thomblake comments on Our Phyg Is Not Exclusive Enough - Less Wrong

25 [deleted] 14 April 2012 09:08PM

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

Comments (513)

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

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 10:35:38PM 3 points [-]

Creating sockpuppets for downvoting is easy.

(kids, don't try this at home).

Just find a Wikipedia article on a cognitive bias that we haven't had a top-level post on yet. Then, make a post to main with the content of the Wikipedia article (restated) and references to the relevant literature (you probably can safely make up half of the references). It will probably get in the neighborhood of 50 upvotes, giving you 500 karma, which allows 2000 comment downvotes.

Even if those estimates are really high, that's still a lot of power for little effort. And just repeat the process for 20 biases, and you've got 20 sockpuppets who can push a combined 20 downvotes on a large number of comments.

Of course, in the bargain Less Wrong is getting genuinely high-quality articles. Not necessarily a bug.

Comment author: steven0461 16 April 2012 10:59:10PM *  2 points [-]

If restating Wikipedia is enough to make for a genuinely high-quality article, maybe we should have a bot that copy-pastes a relevant Wikipedia article into a top-level post every few days. (Based on a few minutes of research, it looks like this is legal if you link to the original article each time, but tell me if I'm wrong.)

Comment author: thomblake 17 April 2012 12:26:19PM 1 point [-]

If restating Wikipedia is enough to make for a genuinely high-quality article, maybe we should have a bot that copy-pastes a relevant Wikipedia article into a top-level post every few days.

Really, I think the main problem with this is that most of the work is identifying which ones are the 'relevant' articles.

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 11:03:11PM 0 points [-]

I was implying a non-copy-paste solution. Still, interesting idea.

Comment author: steven0461 16 April 2012 11:06:42PM *  0 points [-]

Yes; I didn't mean to say you were implying a copy-paste solution. But if we're speaking in the context of causing good articles to be posted and not in the context of thinking up hypothetical sock-puppeting strategies, whether it's copy-pasted or restated shouldn't matter unless the restatement is better-written than the original.

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 11:13:31PM 0 points [-]

agreed

Comment author: othercriteria 16 April 2012 10:41:18PM 0 points [-]

Less Wrong is getting genuinely high-quality articles.

Modulo the fake references, of course.

Comment author: thomblake 16 April 2012 10:42:13PM 0 points [-]

of course

Comment author: RobertLumley 18 April 2012 01:45:02AM 0 points [-]

There's not much reason to do something like this, when you can arbitrarily upvote your own comments with your sockpuppets and give yourself karma.

Comment author: thomblake 18 April 2012 03:19:43AM 0 points [-]

But then those comments / posts will be correctively downvoted, unless they're high-quality. And you get a bunch more karma from a few posts than a few comments, so do both!

Comment author: Eugine_Nier 18 April 2012 03:48:59AM 2 points [-]

You can delete them afterwards, you keep karma from deleted posts.

Comment author: wedrifid 18 April 2012 01:28:02PM 3 points [-]

Let's keep giving the disgruntled script kiddies instructions! That's bound to produce eudaimonia for all!

Comment author: RobertLumley 18 April 2012 12:13:18PM 0 points [-]

We found one of the sockpuppets, and he had one comment that added nothing that was at like 13 karma. It wasn't downvoted until I was karmassassinated.