This is a FANTASTIC idea! Thanks so much for writing these! (Also: I upvoted all of your polls for using HonoreDB's system.)
Some thoughts on the rewrites:
Homepage
It might be useful to give more examples of how cognitive biases can be used to improve their thinking, and potentially to mention the instrumental/epistemic rationality divide. In general, looking through the past few main and discussion posts, it doesn't look to me like either the current or proposed homepage text accurately summarizes most content.
It's "Bayes's Theorem," not "the Bayesian Theorem."
About Page
I like your post summaries, but I'm not sure how you've divided them into general vs more meaty categories; also, I'm not sure if "meaty" is the right word to use. (More formalized isn't quite accurate with the lists you've generated, but I think it might be what you're trying to get at.)
I wouldn't put quotation remarks around "skeptics." I agree with the sentiment, but it's not very good signalling. (Also, it's literally true that they are being skeptical.)
I would say that LW sets "an extremely high standard" for conversation, instead of just a "high" standard.
FAQ
I would suggest removing the brief definition of rationality from the top- it's explained later on as well, in greater depth.
The section "Reading an Study" has a lot of stuff in it- it may be worth putting something in, either at the start or by appending a question about whether or not all this material is necessary, that states that you don't necessarily need to read all of it in order to participate.
Again, thanks so much for writing these!
This is a FANTASTIC idea! Thanks so much for writing these!
Thanks!
It might be useful to give more examples of how cognitive biases can be used to improve their thinking
Got any specific ideas? (I already fished once, see http://lesswrong.com/lw/bfr/rationality_anecdotes_for_the_homepage/.)
In general, looking through the past few main and discussion posts, it doesn't look to me like either the current or proposed homepage text accurately summarizes most content.
Yeah, but it's only natural that we'll move beyond the basics. I figured I'd try to d...
Proposed rewrites can be found here. Please suggest specific improvements in the comments!
Although long-time Less Wrong users don't pay much attention to the home page, about page, and FAQ, I suspect new users pay lots of attention to them. A few times, elsewhere on the internet, I've seen people describe their impression of Less Wrong that seemed primarily gleaned from these pages--they made generalizations about Less Wrong that didn't seem true to me, but might appear to be true if all one did was read the about page and FAQ.
The about page, in particular, is called out to every new visitor. Try visiting Less Wrong in incognito mode or private browsing (i.e. without your current cookies) to see what I'm referring to.
But the current set of "newcomer pages" isn't very good, in my opinion:
I certainly don't claim to speak for all Less Wrong users. If you have any thoughts, please comment here, send me a private message, or log in to the wiki and edit the candidate pages directly.
I'm especially interested in getting feedback on the FAQ, because I took the liberty of codifying some social norms that were previously implicit: see the section Site Etiquette and Social Norms, especially the bits about Discussion vs Main, politics, and "if you never get voted down, you're not posting enough".
If you think I codified the social norms incorrectly, or you've been thinking they really should be different, please comment! The FAQ seems like a good way to broadcast preferred norms, so I suspect this is an ideal thread to discuss them.
If you've got a suggested change that's nontrivial, I encourage you to create a poll for it here using comments as poll options or HonoreDB's system.
(Previous discussion.)