A nit: I and probably many LWers are allergic to phrases like "Psychological research suggests" that aren't followed by a citation.
It depends on how controversial the research reference is. My tolerance for inappropriate 'citation needed' claims is far, far lower than than my tolerance for claims that are made as assertions rather than links. The latter are simply a different form of communication, and one that everyone - speaker and listener alike - should expect to hold less weight than a reference. The former are most often rhetorical gimmicks or one-upmanship.
Heh, I never even considered being a metacontrarian about this. You're probably right. I think I tend to unsympathetically interpret all missing citations. Still, it seems like most on LW would prefer the citation and a good number would notice its absence.
How to Run a Successful Less Wrong Meetup is a guide that I've been working on, based on lukeprog's instructions, for the last week and a half. As it says in the beginning:
Here's the table of contents:
This is a draft version, so feedback would be most welcome, particularly on things like:
The link above will take you to a Google Docs copy of the document, with the ability to add comments to the draft. Feel free to comment on the guide either as traditional LW comments or by attaching comments to the document itself: both are fine.
EDIT: Here's the most recent version, though without the commenting ability.
EDIT2: The most recent version as of April 11th, with commenting enabled.
EDIT3: First non-draft version; see also this thread.