= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Bugmaster comments on LW Women- Minimizing the Inferential Distance - LessWrong
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 (1254)
I have to respectfully disagree. The articles on Main are usually a bit more structured: they have a specific point to make, and they outline the reasoning and evidence that would lead one to conclude that the point is true.
This article doesn't seem to have a central point, and it doesn't offer any reasoning. It contains a bunch of interesting anecdotes, and it is great for creating discussion, but it doesn't belong in Main.
Please don't misunderstand: I'm not saying that the article is bad (in fact, I do like it), only that it doesn't belong in Main.
I had the impression, reading the post, that this does have a specific point to make ("many of the problems of a male-dominated culture stem from availability biases and can be mitigated by providing information"). Rather than reason that it would be true, they're simply undertaking to carry it out.
This might be a case of prototype vs. definition. I tend towards definition: articles belong in Main if they likely to be of sufficient interest to the whole community.
Articles with structure and citation are much more likely to be of sufficient interest, but that's only an indicator, not the point of having a Main section.