= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard comments on [Altruist Support] How to determine your utility function - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (45)
Then someone (if not you) needs to set out, in detail, what the desired vision for the wiki is. Because at present, it's entirely unclear what you intend it to be useful for. Saying "no that's not it, I don't like that, try again" is not helpful.
Do they care?
You're making an argument toward shutting it down, as the wrong tool for the job (that you haven't specified).
Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying: it will get worse as part of the process of getting to better.
My case is that that's how wikis work generally. As such, if you disagree, you need to say how this one would come to life by some other process (what that process is and preferably some examples to point to).
I'm not sure what Vladimir's vision is - and this is more or less his baby - but the wiki is most useful as a way to reduce inferential distance for newcomers by serving as a reference for jargon and cached thoughts.
It does not need to go into any detail. All significant content should be posted in the form of blog posts where it can (, will and probably already has been) be discussed in depth.
No lumps allowed! Sparsity and incompleteness are to be preferred to lumps. The wiki does not need to be complete. A standalone wiki cannot afford to be lacking in content. A LW wiki can. Because this is a blog, not a wiki. There is plenty of content here. If all the 'wiki' did was have a dozen pages with indexes and a few references then it would still be serving a purpose.
I think that the big difference between David's viewpoint and yours is that he views a wiki as a living, growing thing. The trouble with your slogans above is that they effectively become:
Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?
Not really. I view it as a living thing with higher standards and without a willingness to sacrifice quality for growth.
You are toeing a line here between inappropriate and disingenuous. Not only are my assertions of preference not slogans I was only reluctantly going along with David's 'lumps' metaphor because there were more important things to criticize than an awkward description.
You then proceed to overtly misquote me, adding words that change the meaning to something I quite obviously did not intend. Following up with "Did you really mean to make these slogans so strong?" just strikes the logical rudeness home.
Aside from not being what I referred to this does not accurately represent the kind of system that David was describing either.
No, actually it does. There will always be lumps, but any given lump will be temporary.