AndySimpson comments on Rationalist Role in the Information Age - Less Wrong

4 Post author: byrnema 30 April 2009 06:24PM

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

Comments (16)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: AndySimpson 30 April 2009 10:55:11PM *  9 points [-]

The thing is, I think Wikipedia beat you to the punch on this one. They may not be Yudkowskian, big-R Rationalists, but they are, broadly-speaking, rational. And they do an incredibly effective job of pooling, assessing, summarizing, and distributing the best available version of the truth already. Even people of marginal source-diligence can get a clear view of things from Wikipedia, because extensive arguments have already distilled what is clearly true, what is accepted, what is speculation, and what is on the fringe.

I encourage you to bring the clarity of thought taught in the Less Wrong community to Wikipedia by contributing.

That said, it would be pretty cool if they'd implement a karma-like system for Wikipedia contributors. It would make vandals, fools, trolls, noobs, editors in good standing, and heroic contributors easily recognizable.

Comment author: byrnema 30 April 2009 11:52:45PM *  4 points [-]

Agreed, we shouldn't duplicate anything that Wikipedia already does.

However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of general information and, explicitly, doesn't want the role I am advocating here. While users try to expand the role of Wikipedia, the mediators want a narrower role for Wikipedia and would probably appreciate a complementary site for the purpose of analyzing information.

Wikipedia:

Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. from here

I would be open to petitioning for some kind of "WikiAnalysis" sister site, but that would do little for R-outreach (Is R-outreach something we are interested in?) and we'd be able to do it better.

Comment author: CannibalSmith 01 May 2009 08:18:25AM 1 point [-]
  1. Publish your original thought somewhere.
  2. Get it referenced by "reputable sources".
  3. You may now republish it in Wikipedia!
Comment author: gjm 01 May 2009 08:20:41AM 0 points [-]

3a. Although if you do so, there is some risk that other Wikipedia editors will take exception and complain of conflict of interest.