= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Emile comments on People with Experience in Wikipedia Editing? - 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 (11)
If that's an euphemism for "give up and just let the idiot deface the article", it's a strategy I had to resort to a couple times.
No, I mean "don't explode the way any normal human would even when you're firmly convinced they're malicious rather than stupid." Remember that "assume good faith" is a restatement of "never assume malice when stupidity will suffice".
When giving up and letting the idiot deface the article, I've found coming back in a few years and fixing the article works well. The typical enthusiasm-span of a Wikipedia contributor is 12-18 months.
"Assume good faith" is very, very different from "do not reveal your belief of bad faith." Really, they are opposites. Actually assuming good faith is an extremely bad idea. I think what you really meant was: the one slogan you should know is "Assume good faith."
At this point I think we're arguing definitions. IME stupidity has a special persistence to it. You get occasional paid shills, but they're vastly outnumbered by people working really hard at being stupid. YMMV of course.
I think this is probably a good rationality technique, similar to this seqence post. http://lesswrong.com/lw/i0/are_your_enemies_innately_evil/.
Pretty much. But you might comfort yourself with thoughts of better uses for the atoms they are made of.