By the way, the RW article about LW now seems more... rational... than the last time I checked. (Possibly because our hordes of cultists sposored by the right-wing extremist conspiracy fixed it, hoping to receive the promised 3^^^3 robotic virgins in singularitarian paradise as a reward.) You can't say the same thing about the talk pages, though.

It's strange. Now I should probably update towards "a criticism of LW found online probably somehow comes from two or three people on RW". On their talk pages, Aris Katsaris sounds like a lonely sane voice in a desert of... I guess it's supposed to be a "rationality with a snarky point of view"; which works like this -- I can say anything, and if you prove me lying, I say I was exaggerating to make it more funny.

Some interesting bits from the (mostly boring) talk page:

Yudkowsky is an uneducated idiot because there simply can't be 3^^^3 distinct people

A proper skeptical argument about why "Torture vs Dust Specks" is wrong.

what happened is that they hired Luke Muehlhauser who doesn't know about anything technical but can adequately/objectively research what a research organization would look like, and then push towards outwards appearance of such

This is why LW people care about Löb's Theorem, in case you (LW cultists not belonging to the inner circle) didn't know.

Using Thiel's money to list yourself as co-author is very weak evidence of competence.

An ad-hoc explanation is being prepared. Criticising Eliezer for being a high school dropout and never publishing in peer-reviewed journal is so much fun... but if he would some day publish in a peer-reviewed journal and get citations or whatever recognition by the scientific establishment, RationalWiki already knows the true explanation -- the right-wing conspiracy bribed the scientists. (If the day comes that RW starts criticizing scientists for supporting LW, I will be laughing and munching popcorn.)

Holden Karnofsky's critique had a significant number of downvotes as well - being high profile, they didn't want to burn the bridges, so it wasn't deleted, and a huge number of non-regulars upvoted it.

How do you know what you know? Specifically, where are those data about who upvoted and downvoted Holden coming from? (Or it is an alternative explanation-away? LW does not accept criticism and censors everything, but this one time the power of the popular opinion prevented them from deleting it.)

And finally a good idea:

This talk page is becoming one of the central coordination points for LW/SI's critic/stalkers. Maybe that should be mentioned on the page too?

I vote yes.