steven0461 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: 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