= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Low-hanging fruit: improving wikipedia entries - 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 (19)
There is a number of useful ideas on this forum worth a wikipedia article. However, I am not sure how acceptable it is to reference primarily LW (or another single source) in a wikipedia entry.
On the other hand, some concepts have spread beyond the site. For example, the term "steelmanning" as a step up from the principle of charity would be a good candidate for an article, as it has a number of references outside this community.
Wikipedia's notability standard are much higher for blogs than for academic sources. (Mainstream journalism falls somewhere in between the two.) A concept might be cited on fifteen thousand blogs and still not be counted as 'noteworthy' to the same degree as a concept that's occurred in fifteen substantial academic texts. Citing published books, MIRI research papers, and use of concepts in mainstream journalism + academia is your best bet.
Also, err on the side of consolidating information into a single article (e.g., 'steel man' as a section of the 'straw man' article rather than as a stand-alone) and building a Redirect to the main page, rather than constructing separate articles for every little neologism.
It would count as a blog and would be unlikely to pass muster unless the author was quite famous.