User Profile

star-8
description53
message3306

Recent Posts

Curated Posts
starCurated - Recent, high quality posts selected by the LessWrong moderation team.
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Frontpage Posts
Posts meeting our frontpage guidelines: • interesting, insightful, useful • aim to explain, not to persuade • avoid meta discussion • relevant to people whether or not they are involved with the LessWrong community.
(includes curated content and frontpage posts)
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed
Personal Blogposts
personPersonal blogposts by LessWrong users (as well as curated and frontpage).
rss_feed Create an RSS Feed

Open thread, 18-24 August 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
81

Open thread, 11-17 August 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
274

Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, July 2014, chapter 102

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
374

Open thread, 14-20 July 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
146

Open thread, 7-14 July 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
235

Open thread, 23-29 June 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
194

Open thread, 16-22 June 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
174

[tangential] Bitcoin: GHash just hit 51%

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
18

[LINK] Holden Karnofsky, GiveWell: Sequence Thinking vs. Cluster Thinking

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
5

Open thread, 3-8 June 2014

4y
1 min read
Show Highlightsubdirectory_arrow_left
153

Recent Comments

Villiam started with [a proposal to brigade Wikipedia](http://lesswrong.com/lw/org/open_thread_mar_20_mar_26_2017/dpvz?context=1#dpvz). This was sufficiently prima facie bad faith that I didn't, and still don't, feel any obligation to bend over backwards to construct a kernel of value from his post....(read more)

That's the joke, when a conspiracist calls one a "paid shill".

That's fine :-) It ties in with what I commented above, i.e. conspiracists first assuming that disagreement must be culpable malice.

I already answered #3: the [true rejection](http://lesswrong.com/lw/wj/is_that_your_true_rejection/) seems to be not "you are editing about us on Wikipedia to advance RationalWiki at our expense" (which is a complicated and not very plausible claim that would need all its parts demonstrated), but "y...(read more)

despite hearing that one a lot at Rationalwiki, it turns out the big Soros bucks are thinner on the ground than many a valiant truthseeker thinks

Or just what words mean in the context in question, keeping in mind that we are indeed speaking in a particular context.

[here, let me do your homework for you]

In particular, expertise does not constitute a Wikipedia conflict of interest:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_inter...(read more)

The first two would suggest I'm a subject-matter expert, and particularly the second if the "reliable sources" consistently endorse my stuff, as you observe they do. This suggests I'm viewed as knowing what I'm talking about and should continue. (Be careful your argument makes the argument you think...(read more)

but in the context of Wikipedia, you should after all keep in mind that I am an NSA shill.

(More generally as a Wikipedia editor I find myself perennially amazed at advocates for some minor cause who seem to seriously think that Wikipedia articles on their minor cause should only be edited by advocates, and that all edits by people who aren't advocates must somehow be *wrong* and *bad* an...(read more)

This isn't what "conflict of interest" means at Wikipedia. You probably want to review [WP:COI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COI), and I mean "review" it in a manner where you try to understand *what it's getting at* rather than looking for loopholes that you think will let you do the ant...(read more)