= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
nyan_sandwich comments on How to incentivize LW wiki edits? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (52)
Randomly select people and order them to improve a specific wiki article. Give then +30 if they do, -30 if they refuse. Such a message is cheap, so it can work on spam economics.
This requires a single someone with authority who's job it is to imropve the LW community. This would fit into the general pattern of this person having such a job and having the power to deputize people.
I need to write a post on this general idea...
Edit: Also what manfred said. The general idea is to make it require less agency to improve LW. Either by having someone supply that agency as a service (my idea) or making the actual job require less (manfred's idea)
Terrible idea. Due to the fact that people who possess the conjunction of the properties (Good at explaining + Understands LW material + Good at reduction) (No, the last two don't imply eachother, IME) are rather rare, there is a very high chance that randomly selecting authors will introduce lots of noise, a good proportion of which might be hidden and very difficult to detect. There's also the chance of introducing accidental anti-epistemology directly into the wiki that gets raised by an order of magnitude or two if this strategy is implemented.
Not in social capital. Anyone telling me this (or anyone I believed to be responsible for telling me this) would torpedo theirs with me instantly.