= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
David_Gerard 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)
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.