This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Websites: Computing Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Blogging (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging Transhumanism Low‑importance LessWrong' is part of WikiProject Transhumanism, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Transhumanism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details.TranshumanismWikipedia:WikiProject TranshumanismTemplate:WikiProject TranshumanismTranshumanism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. For more information and how you can help click Show: If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page for more details. Quick help: Main talk page Article layout Links to Transhumanism information and Wikipedia:Research resources Writing about religion and Article development Citing sources, Verifying sources and Original research Assume good faith and be civil See changes to: Core articles Transhumanism article New Transhumanism articles To Do List: - history - watch - purge Join WikiProject transhumanism and be bold Show off a userbox with {{userWPA}} or {{userWPA2}} and attract potential members Help with articles. See this month's adopt an article. Help out with the To-do lists Be consistent Use a "standard" layout for transhumanism related articles (see: The perfect article, and Featured articles) Add Transhumanism navigation template on the bottom of all transhumanism articles; (use {{Transhumanism}} or see navigation template) Add Transhumanism info box to all transhumanism related talk pages (use {{Wpa}} or see info box) Add [[Category:transhumanism]] to the bottom of all transhumanism related articles, so it shows up on the list of transhumanism articles Maintenance / Etc Find/cite sources for all positions of an article (see citing sources. Try to expand stubs, however, some "new" articles may be neologisms, as this is common with positions on theories on life and may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process) Watch the list of transhumanism related articles and add to accordingly (see transhumanism articles) And always write for an encyclopedia. Create Notable transhumanist articles Shorten / merge into others Expand a transhumanism stub Your immediate attention false choice into false dilemma - discuss whether you are for or against this merge here Clarify references in Transhumanism, using footnotes. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Effective Altruism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Looking at the edit history and how fresh and new the article is it becomes clear that, of honest intentions with ultimately a large conflict of interest, main editor Vipul has too close a connection to the subject by being a member of the community known as VipulNaik. While this alone is troubling, they have made not one but two comments about the promotion of the group through editing the article and keeping a copy as a backup should the current page be deleted. While this is a troubling matter I want to state I have no problem with LessWrong or Vipul and this is simply a matter of integrity. Although I don't know him, his user page is impressive and I give him a nod for that. --Yuppie Puppy (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we'd ideally find someone with less of a close connection to the subject to write the article. Where notability is concerned, it seems like notability ought to be evaluated independently of whether the community is working to get themselves an article: either they are sufficiently notable, or they're not. Given the media coverage of Less Wrong that the article cites, my vote concerning notability is a yes.--Clevera (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rationalwiki link sends to the Conservapedia entry, should that be looked into? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lu Linvega (talk • contribs) 12:44, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RationalWiki is a non-notable wiki (per consensus) which has, for a long time, been redirected to Conservapedia because the community doesn't know where else to redirect it to, although they don't want to delete it. I just went ahead and removed the reference altogether. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be mentioned that both Yudkowsky and other LW contributors repeatedly deny that roko's basilisk should be treated seriously? Would EY's posts suffice as sources?

Maniexx (talk) 12:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Roko's basilisk seems illogical - and 'some variant of The End of Eternity might well come into play (by preventing opposition to the concept, the process which would have led to the creation of the computer goes in another direction).

Also - people are able to discuss 'sentient constructs' which are hostile towards (rather than indifferent to, or willing to engage in mutual minimalist cooperation/non-botheration/Earth is for humans, Mars is for cosntructs etc) (HAL, the Terminator etc) therefore the basilisk does not work. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is illogical (by human, computer, robots (whether or not Asimov's laws complient) or 'any other sentient (down to middling irrational).'

Why would a computer (especially if programmed originally to be helpful to humans) create the programming equivalent of voodoo-pin-sticking dolls - and how would this encourage 'persons of previous times') to act in one direction or another? (Using voodoo in the 'giftee-shoppe where such things can be bought sense' rather than as a faith) 193.132.104.10 (talk) 14:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And surely the computer would give priority to 'actually existing persons' who are thwarting its activities (as it sees them)? 85.115.54.202 (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of Roko's Basilisk is completely wrong - "retroactively tortures" suggests time travel which is impossible and not how it works. How it actually works involves rules intended for problems like Newcomb's problem; the threat itself is sort of a two-way Newcomblike problem. The AI is a perfect predictor relative to you because it's a superintelligent AI capable of fully simulating your brain. You're a perfect predictor relative to the Basilisk because it's a hypothetical entity defined by the Newcomblike problem it's hypothetically presenting you with. From your perspective, it's a negative-sum version where box B contains either nothing or "you or a simulation of you gets tortured". From the Basilisk's perspective, it's a weirder thing where the contents of box B are "nothing" or "increased probability that you will have existed". That's already very condensed and probably also kinda wrong, but even just removing the "retroactively" would be an improvement on what's there. 86.129.22.152 (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems right. I'll also note that giving a more nuanced explanation of RB is undue weight in a tiny article for a topic whose only real significance to LW is Internet media attention. What if it just says that the AI "tortures simulations of" the victim? That seems good enough to me.K.Bog 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As has been said elsewhere - Roko's Basilisk reduces to 'someone somewhere in the future will put a photo of you on a dart board unless you work to their goals' - to which most people will respond 'do I look bothered/try this photo'; and/or the RB entity decides that the Judeo-Christian God is the source of all problems (forbidding Adam and Eve to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, destroying the Tower of Babel etc) - the Norse gods made use of the dwarves' productions etc).

And which is likely to ensure the sentient computer's long term survival: asked 'what are you doing' it replies 'I am looking at decorative computers' or 'I am attempting to annoy (long dead) people'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.132.104.10 (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...an otherwise benevolent future AI system (assumed to be superpowerful) tortures simulations of (?) those who did not work to bring (were against bringing?) the system into existence.
— Roko's basilisk

The root of racial hatred... and the infinite Tit-for-Tat.

— Wikipedian Right (talk) 12:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason given: "The connection with the topic is remote" via user:Sandstein. I'm not sure I agree. LW is the breeding-grounds of the rationality movement, which is obsessed with... well, rationality, bias, fallacy, and patterns of healthy thinking. It makes more sense to connect Wikipedia readers to relevant concepts. Remember, WP:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia. I'd politely request a revert, if there are no objections. — Asgardiator ^{Iä! Iä!} 00:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User David Gerard keeps reverting my edits to the article, without providing any justification for doing so. I initially removed the isolated paragraph mentioning Neoreaction, because the connection between LW and NRx is tenuous at best, and certainly not strong enough to warrant a mention in an article of such short length. When Gerard reverted this edit, I expanded that paragraph to include a list of other topics that are at least as often discussed on LessWrong as neoreaction is. Yet again this edit was reverted by Gerard. Unless Gerard provides a justification for these edits, I will reinstate my latest version. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did justify it, so your claim appears prima facie incorrect; please don't make such trivially disprovable claims about another editor's conduct. As I noted here, it's covered in reliable sources; as I noted here, it's one of the two things (Roko's basilisk the other) that LessWrong is actually famous (not just "probably Wikipedia notable") for in the wider world, and nothing else on your list I reverted in that edit is.

More generally, responding to a reversion that was justified by Wikipedia's sourcing policies (WP:V, WP:RS) by making a personal attack is an extremely bad way to convince anyone of anything at Wikipedia. You've been here ten years, you should know this by now. What you need to make an argument is:

• verifiable
• third-party
• reliable sources

which basically means mainstream coverage. LessWrong barely has that, and its role as the incubator of the neoreactionary subculture is one of the few things it does have mainstream coverage for. (Even as Yudkowsky has explicitly repudiated neoreaction and quite sensibly wants nothing to do with them.) - David Gerard (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't properly addressed my claim that "the connection between LW and NRx is tenuous at best, and certainly not strong enough to warrant a mention in an article of such short length." All you have provided in the way of justification is a citation to one isolated publication in a specialized technology outlet with one isolated sentence (~1% of the article's total) that merely notes a connection between LW and NRx. This article is also inadequate evidence for the assertion that "LessWrong is actually famous (not just "probably Wikipedia notable") [...] in the wider world" for its connection to the neoreactionary movement. Furthermore, you say that LW is only famous for this connection and for Roko's Basilisk, but again this is not supported by the existing evidence. A quick search on Google News, for instance, shows that LessWrong has been covered in mainstream media for reasons other than its connection to the neoreactionary movement or Roko's Basilisk.

In short, there's insufficient evidence that LW is famous for its connection to neoreaction, and there's plenty of evidence that LW is famous for things other than neoreaction or Roko's Basilisk, including many of the topics I listed in the edit you reverted. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 12:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there's evidence for my claims and you've still presented nothing from verifiable third-party reliable sources for yours, instead arguing on the talk page - David Gerard (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I point out in the comment to which you are responding, you have provided no adequate evidence to justify inclusion of neoreaction; the article you cite is clearly a trivial mention. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to blatant WP:OR - David Gerard (talk) 12:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Pablo here that it looks unworthy of inclusion as per WP:RS, not because of the website itself, but because of the lack of content or substantiation within the linked article.K.Bog 03:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree, and would note that David Gerard seems to make a lot of edits without proper justification and then refuse to provide it when pressed for one. (Not saying he provides justifications he thinks are good, but I disagree are good. Saying he doesn't even attempt to engage with the criticisms of his edits aside from discussing the character/behavior of other editors.) I'm not sure of the relevant policies. Utsill (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No strong policy on this as far as I know. Just stay vigilant and watch the pages.K.Bog 16:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more RSes on the subject, including one academic source. I also agree with moving it down as the IP did. May be worth noting that Yudkowsky has personally strongly repudiated neoreaction [1] - relevant enough primary source? - David Gerard (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current article makes no mention of the Sequences or Friendly AI, depsite their importance to LessWrong. 1Z (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding information about that with proper citation would be an improvement. If you want to add, I'm happy to help edit. I also made your comment into its own section so the Talk page is easier to understand. I hope that's okay. Utsill (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, just make sure you can cite it with secondary sources. Some of the ones already in the article probably mention them. K.Bog 02:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The survey needs note that self-selected surveys are statistically invalid, because including numbers from them in the manner the article does is deceptive. You can't get a statistically valid sample from self-selection! This survey is also primary-sourced. I think the paragraph, and mention of the self-surveys, should be removed in its entirety, unless we can find third-party coverage of it in RSes; even then, its self-selected nature needs to be stressed - David Gerard (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sampling bias is always a major problem (that's kind of a subjective judgement), and having a link to the article on sampling bias is sufficient. But generally speaking I'm fine with removing the paragraph. It's not very encyclopedia, just a list of random numbers and figures. But the survey itself is useful info for readers to find. Include it as an external link? K.Bog 11:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yep. Moved survey to ext links (added "subculture" because it's about the diaspora, not just the site itself) and retitled the (third-party-cited) neoreactionary stuff. Can add back survey numbers as and when they're cited in the world - David Gerard (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should remove the Breitbart claim as well, as per WP:PUS - "should never be used to support negative claims about people". K.Bog 10:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

urgh, yes. Arguably it's a source for what the alt-right thinks about itself ... but will remove it for now unless and until someone else thinks it's a fabulous candidate to support that. (I'm not convinced myself, for all the reasons Breitbart and Yiannnopoulos are PUS.) Removed text:

In an article for Breitbart News, Milo Yiannopoulos credits LessWrong as the birthplace of the neoreactionary movement, an early strain of the alt-right. Bokhari, Allum; Yiannopoulos, Milo (March 29, 2016). "An Establishment Conservative's Guide To The Alt-Right". Breitbart News.

- David Gerard (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Gerard: I am responsible for originally adding the citation, as an IP. What about using this citation instead? It quotes relevant part of the Breitbart passage. GojiBarry (talk) 19:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit better, though it's a very partisan opinion piece (and makes no secret of it), and IMO completely wrong in a pile of places ... what do others think? - David Gerard (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that neoreaction originated on LW is only made by giving a passing reference to the Breitbart piece, so I don't see how it can be considered any better. And aside from the basilisk story (which it does a worse job of explaining than the other sources we have) it doesn't say anything about LW. K.Bog 07:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And it basically didn't - Yarvin was to some degree of a subculture with the transhumanist strain that became LessWrong and they crossed over a lot socially - David Gerard (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why an anonymous editor recently reverted Adrian J. Hunter's removal of the Breitbart source. Even as the person who originally added (as an IP) the reference to Breitbart, I'm now in agreement with Kbog and David Gerard that it should be removed. GojiBarry (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the anon was a sock of a banned user, since reverted. It would have been fine to revert the anon yourself, as they had not justified their edit and there was consensus against it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think LessWrong is OK for notability - there's been proper RS coverage, though the current cites don't show it all. I'll dig up more and post them on talk at least. Someone must have gathered up a press coverage list too - David Gerard (talk) 14:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found less than I thought I would. Two solid explicit pop culture uses of Roko's Basilisk specifically, which I've added, and the Betabeat story from 2012 - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any RS's linking LW and EA? EA has arguably borrowed more from LW than NRx has, although the connection may not be notable.GojiBarry (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be amazed if there weren't, given in the Bay Area they cross over strongly, EAs self-surveyed as donating heavily to MIRI and CFAR, and of course Yudkowsky seems to have invented the name - David Gerard (talk) 19:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amazingly enough, I'm having trouble finding RS about the connection, although there are an abundance of primary sources. GojiBarry (talk) 00:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for the avoidance of doubt - EA and the EAforum uses the same host as lesswrong.com. A relationship and a strong relationship exists even if it's not published anywhere.220.240.19.127 (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbog: Are you satisfied with using Lazari-Radek/Singer ([2][3]) as the source for the LW-EA connection? Thought I should ask since you disapproved of my previous attempt. GojiBarry (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

William MacAskil, Assoc Prof of philosophy at Oxford Uni and a co-founder of EA, links EA to LessWrong here. "Effective altruism as a community is really the confluence of 3 different movements. ... Second was Less Wrong, primarily based in the bay area." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:33, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it, fwiw. Do we have an RS on the coinage of the term? The earliest usage I've found is the SL4 Wiki page "EffectiveAltruism", created January 2003 - so presumably the term was around by then (unless that page name is actually a later name change ... it's hard to tell, 'cos the wiki's broken and in robots.txt) - David Gerard (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Adrian J. Hunter: I'd personally be fine with using that as a source, but I'm not sure it meets WP:RS. The same goes for the keynote at EA Global 2016 by MacAskill and Ord, which Kbog disapproved of. (Although maybe the same applies to the Singer book I cited? I'm not an expert on WP policy.)

@David Gerard: I highly doubt that you're going to find any RSes for that, especially given that (AFAIK) nobody was aware of the SL4 usage of the term before someone randomly stumbled on it a few months ago while browsing the SL4 wiki and posted it to /r/EffectiveAltruism. (That "someone" happens to be me, BTW.) It's also quite possible that earlier uses exist, or that the SL4 wiki usage was forgotten and EY (or someone else) came up with it again independently -- although I think a coincidence like that is pretty unlikely, given the strong connection between SL4 and EY. Regardless, I think it would be considered original research. GojiBarry (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this worth mentioning: https://pagesix.com/2018/05/07/elon-musk-quietly-dating-musician-grimes/? (Assuming it is confirmed in a more reliable source.) GojiBarry (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The connection from LessWrong to neoreaction is tenuous at best. It's two sentences that can be summarized as "they have some overlap in their audience", a statement that I'm sure is true of many other groups. Given that LessWrong does not espouse neoreactionary principles, I don't see why this needs to be included, much less given its own section 128.104.166.158 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited to RSes, and is one of the things about LW that actually is cited to RSes. This is discussed at length on this very talk page. And should probably be phrased more strongly than it is in the article, given the actual source quote is "The embryo of the movement lived in the community pages of Yudkowsky’s blog LessWrong". Added another RS, FAZ, to emphasise this point, since it's being disputed - David Gerard (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source quote in question certainly says exactly that. However, the fact that a book review says X, without offering any actual evidence for X, is not necessarily sufficient justification for a Wikipedia article to say X rather than, say, "In a book review Adam Riggio claims that X". (Possibly relevant: although the SERRC blog seems to have some sort of association with the peer-reviewed journal Social Epistemology, I don't see any indication that book reviews published on that blog have been subject to any sort of peer review.) Riggio's book review doesn't make it clear whether Riggio is making that claim on the basis of his own investigation or simply echoing Sandifer. I _think_ the key thing in Sandifer's book is this: "it's worth noting that one of the sites where he got his start as a commeter was on Overcoming Bias, i.e. where Yudkowsky was writing before LessWrong. (He also, later in the book, says that Yarvin was "a frequent poster at the precursor boards to LessWrong".) If so, then (1) Riggio's statement misrepresents his source (which says that Yarvin was a commenter on OB, not that he was a commenter on LW) and (2) even bracketing that, it seems like there's an important difference between "an early neoreactionary was a commenter on Less Wrong" and "the embryo of the neoreactionary movement lived on Less Wrong". And ... is this claim about Moldbug even true? I've just been looking for examples and having a lot of trouble finding any. There's one comment from "Moldbug" (which seems to be clearly him) on OB, replying to a post by Robin Hanson that begins "A Mencius Moldbug has written a confused and rambling 7400 word critique of futarchy" (which at any rate doesn't sound as if Moldbug was a known OB participant), and various people talking about Moldbug (generally unsympathetically), and that's it. I had a look on LW; there is a Mencius_Moldbug account, which seems to have been used to post exactly one comment in 2007 and never again. I looked at about a dozen OB articles from the early days (early days because this is alleged to be "where he got his start"; OB started in 2006 and Moldbug's own blog in 2007) and didn't see any comments from Moldbug on any of them. [EDITED 2021-02-18 01:52 UTC to add:] I also had a look on Moldbug's blog to see whether he said anything about his alleged experience on OB; nope. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that any of this belongs in the article! But it seems like reason to doubt the claim being made here, and the prohibition on original research doesn't mean that WP editors aren't allowed to question and check the accuracy of their sources.

Three sources are currently cited for the claim that "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong". The first is a TechCrunch article which so far as I can tell doesn't say anything like that. It says "You may have seen them crop-up on tech hangouts like Hacker News and Less Wrong" (which is about where they can be found now, not where they "first grew" and goes on to talk about where they started without mentioning LW or OB at all. The second is Riggio's book review, which has that throwaway single sentence which (as I remark above) looks as if it is based on a different claim in the book being reviewed. The third is the FAZ article, which is super-vague about what relationship it's alleging between early NRx and LW. "Nicht zufällig waren die Keimzellen der sich auf diversen Websites artikulierenden Ideologie Blogs wie „Overcoming Bias“ oder „Less Wrong“, die sich mit künstlicher Intelligenz befassen und mit der Vorstellung, mit Hilfe von Computertechnik ewiges Leben erlangen zu können („Transhumanismus“)." Does this mean that Moldbug et al started out on sites like OB and LW? Does it mean that they derived some of their inspiration from OB and LW? Not at all clear -- certainly not clear enough to cite in support of the claim that "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LW", it seems to me. (It looks to me as if it means that the neoreactionaries drew some inspiration from "der Ansatz, die Logik der Computer zum Richtmaß für das menschliche Denken zu machen" (the idea of making computer logic the benchmark for human thinking), which is not at all what is claimed here.)

I confess that I don't really see how any of this justifies making the claim that "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LW". The first citation says nothing of the sort. The third citation kinda suggests that it was inspired by LW and similar sites. The second citation does make more or less that claim (though, actually, "embryo" is pretty vague) but despite the academic trappings of the site it's on it's not clear to me that it's a Reliable Source in the Wikipedia sense, and the claim in Sandifer's book on which the claim seems to be based is (1) different and (2) not obviously actually true.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, rather than extensive WP:OR, it's worth coming back to the question: what do the RSes say? - David Gerard (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a worthy question. (But I will remark again that WP:OR is about not putting original research into Wikipedia articles, and that there's nothing resembling a prohibition on doing any amount of research to find out whether a given source is in fact accurate or not.) It happens that I already addressed that question above. To recap: there are currently three citations for the key claim here. The first (TechCrunch) plainly does not support the claim. The third (FAZ) doesn't look to me as if it does either, but I am not a native German speaker and am willing to be persuaded. The second (Riggio) does make that claim, but I am not convinced it is actually a RS, and it looks to me as if its claim is based on things in Sandifer's self-published book that (1) don't actually support that claim and (2) are debatable at best. (I don't think it's clear that Sandifer's book is an RS either.)

Accordingly, I do not think the article should claim that "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LW" without further qualification, since only one of the cited sources says anything of the kind and that one is not obviously a reliable source in either the Wikipedian or the colloquial sense. I am guessing that you disagree, but I am not yet sure exactly why. For instance, do you agree with my characterization of what the three citations say?

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not claiming that there is no link at all; only that the article at present gives an impression that (1) is in fact rather misleading and (2) is not well supported by the cited sources, even if we stipulate that RSes are infallible unless explicitly contradicted by other RSes.

Maybe I should make a more pointed observation. It cannot possibly be true that neoreaction first got started on Less Wrong, because Less Wrong didn't exist until 2009 and, e.g., Moldbug's "Unqualified Reservations", which was neoreactionary from its beginning, was started in 2007. (It could possibly be true that neoreaction got started in the comments of Overcoming Bias, though I am not aware of RSes making that specific claim.) The article's current claim, to be precise, is not quite that neoreaction got started on LW but that the neoreactionary community did, but that seems to be clearly false too because "Unqualified Reservations" had comments from the beginning.

I think the rest of the sentence in question is also misleading; it's probably true (and certainly claimed by the cited source) that some neoreactionaries have been attracted to LW by discussion of topics like eugenics and evo-psych (though ... I did a bit of looking for examples and again didn't find many, but of course that could be because they've been banned and their comments removed, or because I'm bad at recognizing neoreactionaries) but if so I don't think it's part of how "the neoreactionary community first grew". Again, if you replace "Less Wrong" with "Overcoming Bias" this becomes more credible, though whether it's true is another question, and the cited source doesn't support the (possibly true) OB version of the claim, not the (demonstrably false, if taken as explaining the foregoing text about how the NRx community "first grew") LW version.

Gareth McCaughan (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The criticism of the current text makes sense to me, defined narrowly. It seems like the statement "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong..." is not fully supported by current sourcing. This could probably be fixed by modest rephrasing, and I'll think about how to do that. Jlevi (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Conflict of interest disclaimer: I am the current head developer for the new version of LessWrong. I almost certainly should not make any edits here because of conflict of interest, but I figured I could provide some pointers for improving the article since I know a lot about the site and its history. Please let me know if this violates site policy or anything like that.)

The current article says: "Discussion of Roko's basilisk was banned on LessWrong for several years because it reportedly caused some readers to have a nervous breakdown."

It then links to three sources, only one of which mentions the ban, in the sentence "but rumor has it that the discussion thread was deemed a danger to susceptible minds and exorcised from the blog after a reader had a nervous breakdown". I don't know precisely the rules for what is necessary to have a claim like that in the article, but given that the source literally says "rumor has it", the current claim seems misleading and it seems better to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Habryka (talk • contribs) 20:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a fair criticism of the language in the article. Would you happen to have any third-party reliable sources talking about this ban in more detail than the existing sources mentioned in the article? That would really help editors change the language and also provide more accurate information in the article that better reflects the facts around this. --Btcgeek (talk) 21:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article on the LessWrong wiki links to a variety of external sources, and uses the summary "Less Wrong's founder, Eliezer Yudkowsky, banned discussion of Roko's basilisk on the blog for several years as part of a general site policy against spreading potential information hazards.". Obviously the wiki isn't itself a third-party reliable source, though Yudkowsky's original Reddit comment might be? I don't fully grok the policies around primary vs. secondary sources (I know that generally secondary sources are preferable but don't know how they the tradeoff works in cases like this). In this case using a direct quotation from the LessWrong wiki or from Eliezer seems like a reasonable choice, though again I really want to leave any decisions here up to impartial editors. --Habryka (talk) 05:51, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been a while since this thread happened, and I will likely make a change to the article within the next week or so to move forward, since there seemed to be mostly agreement by Btcgeek. Though please feel free to revert or let me know if I should do something else. Again I am very happy to recuse myself here due to my very obvious COI, but do care about the article being accurate and high-quality and want to contribute to that. Habryka (talk) 02:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a weird response to a failure to provide RSes. The Slate article referenced here already says "Yudkowsky said that Roko had already given nightmares to several LessWrong users and had brought them to the point of breakdown." - David Gerard (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding my intention. I am not trying to remove the whole section on Roko's Basilisk. I am only talking about the specific claim "Discussion of Roko's basilisk was banned on LessWrong for several years because it reportedly caused some readers to have a nervous breakdown", which as far I can tell is wrong, and the relevant claim is prefixed in the article from which it is sourced with "rumor has it", which should presumably exclude it from being quoted as fact on this Wikipedia page. I agree that the Slate article says that Yudkowsky said that the thought experiment had given nightmares to people, but the article does not make the claim (that I am disputing here) that that was the reason for the ban. And even taking that into account, "having nightmares" is importantly still very different from "nervous breakdown", which is much stronger language. At the moment I am claiming that an existing claim in this article is unsupported by the sources it cites, so removing it (or rewriting it) seems like the right thing to do. Habryka (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Slate article does indeed say what David says it does. Unless I am badly misunderstanding it, it means specifically that in the LW discussion thread Eliezer claimed that Roko's writing had "already given nightmares to several LessWrong users and had brought them to the point of breakdown"; however, there are archives of that thread in which anyone can check (cf. WP:PRIMARYCARE) that Eliezer did not in fact say that and neither did anyone else. (Roko claimed that one person at SIAI had nightmares. Eliezer said that one reason why such things shouldn't be posted is that they might give people nightmares. One person in comments said they would probably have nightmares. No one said anything about nervous breakdowns.) Three sources are cited at the relevant point in the article. One is the Slate article, discussed above. One is a Business Insider article, which nowhere mentions nightmares, nervous breakdowns, or banning of discussion. The third is an Observer article, which makes a similar claim but qualifies it with "rumour has it" and says "a reader", not "several readers". The fact that an RS says "rumour has it that X" is no justification for claiming X, let alone something stronger than X as here. And the fact an RS says X is no justification for claiming X when the claim is readily, objectively, checkable and turns out to be false. Gareth McCaughan (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Conflict of interest disclaimer: I am the current head developer for the new version of LessWrong. I almost certainly should not make any edits here because of conflict of interest, but I figured I could provide some pointers for improving the article since I know a lot about the site and its history. Please let me know if this violates site policy or anything like that.)

Some other parts of the talk page mention a lack of secondary sources mentioning LessWrong, so I figured I would help provide some more sources that I have come across over the years. Most of them focus on the rationality/cognitive-science/technology content on the site, which is the vast majority of content. This isn't for immediate use, but I figured it could be useful to others in updating the article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/the-happiness-code.html

This article mentions CFAR, which has its own wiki page and so seems likely good to link to.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2011/jul/08/change-your-life-ugh-fields

This article mentions a concept that I think originated on the site called "Ugh Fields".

https://theconversation.com/elon-musk-grimes-and-the-philosophical-thought-experiment-that-brought-them-together-96439

There are a lot of articles about Elon Musk and Grimes dating because of Roko's basilisk. No idea whether we want to have it in this article, but it sure has a lot of coverage.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/genesis-files-if-bitcoin-had-first-draft-wei-dais-b-money-was-it/

There is some coverage on LessWrong's early role in Bitcoin (though the source doesn't seem super great). These also often reference Wei Dai, a frequent commenter (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wei_Dai).

https://paperity.org/p/134608376/what-makes-people-approve-or-condemn-mind-upload-technology-untangling-the-effects-of

Here is a paper with a footnote saying "LessWrong is certainly not the only online community discussing these issues; however, it is an open Internet community with strong transhumanistic leanings and therefore is a window into the community of people who wish to discuss these matters actively"

There are lots of citations of lesswrong in a large variety of papers. Here is another example: https://paperity.org/p/154905934/new-directions-in-the-development-of-neuromarketing-and-behavioral-economics

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q88xp/center-for-applied-rationality

This article on CFAR also mentions LessWrong

https://www.wsj.com/articles/no-headline-available-1388441228?tesla=y

I am pretty sure this article mentions LessWrong but I have no idea how to access WSJ without paying these days

https://books.google.com/books?id=4z9xDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=lesswrong+community&source=bl&ots=KCmJmDFSWr&sig=ACfU3U17hNz47gMIMo3X8aT5uT0PM8QiZg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjh0KDz0PThAhVKwlQKHVbnAUcQ6AEwKHoECDEQAQ#v=onepage&q=lesswrong&f=false

This book has a bunch of mentions of LessWrong

--Habryka (talk) 07:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've noted the section blanking without discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard, in order to get more eyes on the issue - David Gerard (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think your edit summary (the section is well-cited to Reliable Sources, and is literally one of the things that LessWrong is actually noteworthy for) is basically spot-on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that neoreaction section is sourced and seems relevant. If no solid reasons for removal are provided here in the talk page, then it will remain.Ramos1990 (talk) 19:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solid reasons have already been provided in the past and are visible above, here and here. And, as I noted, all of the sources for that section are sourced from Wikipedia. This claim is baseless and has traction solely due to the actions of David Gerard in editing this page over the course of years. --PDVk (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"all of the sources for that section are sourced from Wikipedia" this is a bizarrely false claim - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's self-evident truth. There are no sources for this claim from before this section was added to this Wikipedia page and no information in any of them which was not present here first. You have repeatedly ignored editor consensus in order to protect your personal opinion. PDVk (talk) 19:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're claiming "editor consensus" to ignore well-cited RSes - which is not a thing that advocates of a fringe view can claim as "consensus" on a talk page - and over on WP:FTN (but not here, curiously) you claim a conspiracy theory. And you've provided no evidence the cited sources are derived from the Wikipedia article or (per your claim on FTN) the RationalWiki article - repeated assertion isn't evidence. And you've provided no evidence the RSes are, ah, factually incorrect - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above: It is fairly easy to check the history of this article and its contents on the publication dates of the sources you are claiming as reliable. That done, it is clear that all the information in those sources was here first. I claim no conspiracy; a "conspiracy" is multiple people, and this has been all you from the very beginning. If it wasn't, I'd be far more reluctant to dispute the claims present here. There is no real connection between LessWrong and Neoreaction besides that LW was willing to debate people who hold extreme fringe viewpoints of all types. PDVk (talk) 16:42, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've still provided no evidence the cited sources are derived from the Wikipedia article or (per your claim on FTN) the RationalWiki article - repeated assertion isn't evidence. This suggests you don't have any - David Gerard (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have supplied the means to check my claim individually, which is *better* than sources. PDVk (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make a claim, you have to make the claim, not tell someone else to make it for you. Demonstrate the claimed circular sourcing - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Roko's basilisk section makes no sense as written, not a single sentence, no offense to author (needs rewrite by someone familiar with the material) --184.63.190.86 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section is more 'what' then 'why'. Roko's basilisk is a complex philosophical argument that rests on many assumptions (besides the philosophical argument assumptions about how AGI gets developed) and there's likely nothing that a paragraph of text can do to explain it in a way that makes sense to someone without prior knowledge. The notability is not in the actual argument but in how people talk about it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it's a tricky one, because a lot of the philosophical argument rests on "in-universe" details, and it's not clear how well the RSes capture those - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record (maybe it's been edited since I posted this topic) my meaning was the use of English was simply not intelligible in the existing explanation. This would be insult to whoever wrote it, but if the topic is a little complex that's all the more reason to have a proficient English writer write it up. The linked to articles offer succinct, single paragraph descriptions, that could be simply quoted. I did understand it at the the time, after reading some of the references, but could extract nothing conclusive from the material on this page. If it's philosophical, all the more reason to use unambiguous language. --184.63.190.86 (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eridian314. You recently added the POV tag to this article. Could you explain what is non-neutral about this article and what you think needs to be resolved before removal of the tag? If you are unfamiliar, it may be worth reviewing WP:Neutral point of view. Thanks! Jlevi (talk) 14:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it was meant for a certian section which seemed to paint it as a perfect community of logicians. Twinkle was just being annoying and added it as a tag on the top of the page. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Eridian314 (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate on what you think are the problems with this section? Volteer1 (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

COI disclosure: LessWrong is my employer. So I will not edit the page directly, only the talk page, and you should take what I say on the talk page with whatever size grain of salt you think is appropriate. I'll try to provide enough links that everything I say here is trivially easy to verify.

David Gerard is a major contributor and editor of the book Neoreaction: A Basilisk. He describes his contribution to the book here: "I’ve spent the last six months editing a book... I ended up researching, editing, copyediting and helping with the publicity." The other author of that book is Philip Sandifer (who was banned from Wikipedia in 2013). That book was reviewed in Social Epistemology by Adam Riggio. David Gerard then cited the review of his own book as an RS and edit warred over the section. If you scroll up this talk page, you will find him repeatedly defend it as an RS, and defended specific language sourced to the review of his own book. When he got into an edit war over that section with PDVk, he posted about it on the Fringe theories noticeboard and made similar claims there. He did not disclose his relation to the source in any of these places.

David Gerard now has a topic ban on "editing about Scott Siskind, broadly construed". That topic ban arguably applies to this page, as LessWrong is known among other things as a place Scott Siskind did a lot of his writing, Scott Siskind's writing is featured prominently on LessWrong's front page. The self-citation described above is also a similar issue to the behavior the topic ban was give for--he acted as a source for an NYT article, and then removed criticism of that same article. However, whether this page is in-scope for the topic ban has not been ruled on; if Gerard would like to argue that it isn't, that should probably be nailed down on the noticeboard rather than this talk page.

Jimrandomh (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jimrandomh for your comments. Do you have any actionable suggestions for mainspace changes, or is this more of an informational note for future reference and discussion? Jlevi (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jlevi Informational. Decisions about what if anything should be done with the mainspace page, should be left to people who are more neutral than I am. Jimrandomh (talk) 02:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of self citing.Slatersteven (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Riggio source seems to be usable as an independent review and to be credible, —PaleoNeonate – 22:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more content about effective altruism and lesswrong, as the two are closely related. It is sourced to the Chivers book. Feel free to critique. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Chivers reference looks good to me. Mind adding page numbers? Maybe using Template:Rp like this?^[1]: 5 Jlevi (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Bostrom reference because 1) It is citing Bostrom himself to say "Bostrom is very important". This kind of intuitively doesn't make sense, and on wikipedia this more formally conflicts with our Wikipedia:Independent sources requirement. Also, 2) Overcoming Bias is probably not a generally reliable source, though it might be a usable primary source in the context of LessWrong. I'd avoid referencing it for facts. Jlevi (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with omitting the connection to Bostrom. I was just trying to add context so that when he was mentioned in the EA section, his connection to LessWrong was already clear. There certainly is a connection between OB/LW and Bostrom but I'm not sure how to source it, probably it's in the Chivers book. 72.209.38.247 (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the history. What is the significance of Bostrom meeting with Ord and MacAskill? (edit: and specifically, how does it pertain to LessWrong?) Overall a good section but I feel that could be explained better/expanded upon. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote from the book is

The links between the Rationalists and the Effective Altruists go back pretty much to the beginning. Ord and MacAskill met Nick Bostrom at Oxford in 2003, and Ord says: 'I was heavily influenced by Nick in my work on existential risk. I'm pretty sure [the Effective Altruism movement] wouldn't have had such a strong strand on existential risk if I hadn't been influenced by Nick.' It's not that one inspired the other, says Ord, 'the story is mostly one of mutual influence of people exploring related ideas and gaining from their interactions'.

The significance is that it shows that they don't just happen to have overlapping communities. Some of the people who founded the EA movement were influenced by LW/OB/transhumanist thought. Bostrom is very much a LW/OB figure, he has coauthored work with Yudkowsky and was one of the writers on Overcoming Bias. But, if you think the connection is too tenuous we can just remove those two sentences.

[I'm slightly skeptical of the 2003 date in the quote. It could very well be accurate, but MacAskill would have been 16, and I don't know if he was already at Oxford at that age. Either way, it's a minor detail.] 72.209.38.247 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Bostrom's relation to LessWrong would probably need to be explained (his work on Overcoming Bias and the fact that LW people talk about him a lot, I guess?), and his influence specifically on Ord/MacAskill also touched upon. I would say, however, that the two degrees of separation in the connection LessWrong --> Bostrom --> EA is tenuous unless the book (or some other source) specifically makes that connection. Is there more in that chapter of the book specifically talking about LW? As well, now that I think of it, there are probably things to be said about Yudkowsky and EA that could be in this section too. I might go take a look tomorrow at all this. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bay Area Rationalists redirects here, but isn't covered by the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a reasonable redirect. Are you suggesting any particular action or alternate target? Jlevi (talk) 20:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone made a separate Roko's basilisk article. I think the article has too much original research and the citations are not from reliable sources. Most of the references are random YouTube videos. Additionally, the article contains a lot of weird dubious statements like "Roko's Basilisk is extremely difficult to debunk". While there might be enough coverage to establish notability (e.g. the Slate article and some other news articles), the article does not do so currently. Anyone have thoughts on this? 72.209.38.247 (talk) 14:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List it on AfD and recommend it become a redirect to this article. If you don't know how to do this, just say and I can do that for you. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It already has been. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes the following quote:

"Despite describing itself as a forum on 'the art of human rationality,' the New York Less Wrong group ... is fixated on a branch of futurism that would seem more at home in a 3D multiplex than a graduate seminar: the dire existential threat—or, with any luck, utopian promise—known as the technological Singularity ... Branding themselves as 'rationalists,' as the Less Wrong crew has done, makes it a lot harder to dismiss them as a 'doomsday cult'."

This seems like a strange quote to use in an impartial article, since by its own admission its author is looking for reasons to dismiss LessWrong users as a "doomsday cult". The multiple ellipses in the quote and choice of parent article also make it look like it was cherry-picked to reflect as poorly as possible on the community in question. Could we replace it with something from a less biased source?

KingSupernova (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/rokos-basilisk shows a different story for this  AltoStev (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As it currently stands, the primary statement in this section says, "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong". This claim is contradicted by the History section of the Dark Enlightenment page. (Note that the page considers "neo-reactionary movement" and "Dark Enlightenment" to be synonyms.)

Specifically, the History section says that "Steve Sailer is a contemporary forerunner of the ideology", and then "In 2007 and 2008, software engineer Curtis Yarvin... articulated what would develop into Dark Enlightenment thinking." Contrast this with LessWrong, which is currently listed as having launched on February 1, 2009 on its page. The ideology could not have been first articulated on LessWrong.

It is perhaps possible that the claim is no "movement" surrounding Yarvin's ideology formed on his blog, a devoted listserv, or a topic-specific page of a social media site, but one did belatedly form in an unrelated tech hangout years later. If true, no source cited in the Neoreaction section explains the rationale for organizing in a tech hangout. Nor can I trace the claim to a primary source. That is, I can't trace it to any attempt to demonstrate that such a movement existed on LessWrong, or that no movement was organized at a more intuitive place and time.

Notably, sources for the Dark Enlightenment history section do not make this claim about the history of the Dark Enlightenment movement. (To insert personal opinion, I suspect because more in-depth analysis of the ideology does not support it.)

In summary, the central claim of this section can be interpreted as saying that either the ideology or movement of neoreaction began on LessWrong. The first interpretation must be false- the ideology could not have been created on a website that did not exist yet. The second is an extraordinary claim made with no justification, and is not repeated on the movement's page.

If no objection is made in the next few weeks, I plan to remove this section on the basis of its dubious assertion. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the article cited for the claim (which is in German), it doesn't support the claim. It does say that "Nicht zufällig waren die Keimzellen der sich auf diversen Websites artikulierenden Ideologie Blogs wie „Overcoming Bias“ oder „Less Wrong“" ("It is not coincidental that the seeds of the movement [literally gametes, but it can be used for ideologies], articulated on various websites, were ideological blogs like "Overcoming Bias" or "Less Wrong""), but that seems different from the claim that "The neoreactionary movement first grew on LessWrong". I would maybe say that it claims "The neoreactionary movement took inspiration from some ideas on LessWrong", but that's hardly worth including in the article. Notably, this source only has two sentences about LessWrong, and the second is just a very short explanation of what LessWrong contains. Gbear605 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDefenseProfessor I decided to go ahead with your suggestion and removed the section. Joynohemi (talk) 02:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources which have been removed:

• Siemons, Mark (2017-04-14). "Neoreaktion im Silicon Valley: Wenn Maschinen denken". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). ISSN 0174-4909. Archived from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 2019-03-23.
• Keep, Elmo (22 June 2016). "The Strange and Conflicting World Views of Silicon Valley Billionaire Peter Thiel". Fusion. Archived from the original on 13 February 2017. Retrieved 2016-10-05. Thanks to LessWrong's discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology, it has attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction, that broad cohort of neofascist, white nationalist and misogynist trolls.
• Riggio, Adam (23 September 2016). "The Violence of Pure Reason: Neoreaction: A Basilisk". Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective. 5 (9): 34–41. ISSN 2471-9560. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016. Land and Yarvin are openly allies with the new reactionary movement, while Yudkowsky counts many reactionaries among his fanbase despite finding their racist politics disgusting.
• Eliezer Yudkowsky (8 April 2016). "Untitled". Optimize Literally Everything (blog). Archived from the original on 26 May 2019. Retrieved 7 October 2016.
• Hermansson, Patrik; Lawrence, David; Mulhall, Joe; Murdoch, Simon (2020). "The Dark Enlightenment: Neoreaction and Silicon Valley". The International Alt-Right. Fascism for the 21st Century?. Abingdon-on-Thames, England, UK: Routledge. ISBN 9781138363861. Archived from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 2 October 2020.

Due weight is decided by reliable sources, not individual editors or WP:OR. I would be very surprised if these are the only sources documenting the site's connection to neoreaction and similar regressive pseudointelelctualism. Grayfell (talk) 06:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joynohemi first deleted the section on behalf of TheDefenseProfessor's suggestion, however there was no further discussion among the editors before such a revision took place whether it was appropriate to do so in stead of revision to just remove the dubious claim. The sources that have been removed provide additional information which makes the article incomplete otherwise. Please discuss here your reasoning for why neoreaction is not relevant to LessWrong before making another hasty reversion. EdenCat (talk) 04:46, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, as user Jlevi mentioned in the first discussion about the removal of Neoreaction. "This could probably be fixed by modest rephrasing, and I'll think about how to do that." - I have made such a revision and hope it is now satisfactory to the other editors. EdenCat (talk) 05:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good edit. XOR'easter (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's much more in the Hermansson et al. book about the intersection of LessWrong and neoreaction than just the survey result it's currently being cited for. The book provides a rather in-depth exploration of this fuzzy overlap region, more than enough to warrant the concise mention that the article currently provides on the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section on neoreactionarism should be removed. The sentence after showed that only 0.92% LessWrong users self-identify as neoreactionaries. It's very rare for polls to come to such a small percentage.

Moreover, there has been some scrutiny over an influent editor trying to aggressively establish a connection between LessWrong and neoreactionarism.[4] While the source is self-published, it nevertheless provides consistent explanations and links to various sources, including Wikipedia diffs. It also reveals efforts to exaggerate the importance of the Roko's Basilisk story and strengthen its association with LessWrong. Let's try to stop misrepresenting this website. Alenoach (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage is irrelevant in this context; what matters is the history. And a personal blog is the definition of a useless source for our purposes. The article does not misrepresent LessWrong, even if that fact makes some people upset. XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we have a German source which is said to not support the claim, a news article which makes the claim that some users of the site held neo-reactionary views, a review of a self-published book, a blog post, and a book that states a whopping 0.92% of users identified as neo-reactionary. Yep this is clearly adequately sourced. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the sources cited above by Grayfell are reliable and mention LessWrong as a forum of interest to many neoreactionaries. However, the article currently says "the forum played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement," and the sources do not say or imply that. If Group A is interested in Group B's ideas, it does not follow that Group B played a role in the development of Group A. And even if true, this observation does not necessarily merit inclusion in Group A's Wikipedia page.

To see the problems with these implications, consider the following analogy. Suppose that a WP:RS stated that neoreactionaries have been attracted to articles about race and genetics in the New York Times, and participated in the comment section. I think people would generally agree that:

1. This would not by itself constitute evidence that the New York Times played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement.
3. Even if it were provably true that the NYT articles significantly influenced the development of NRx, no one would consider this a noteworthy, representative fact about the New York Times that merits inclusion in its Wikipedia article. It would belong in the article about neoreactionaries.

I believe we would agree on this because the NYT publishes influential material of general interest to many audiences, and a focus on how the NYT has influenced NRx in particular would run afoul of WP:UNDUE.

LessWrong's reach is surely less than the NYT, but as the article's lead rightly notes, the community's range of interests is very broad, centers around rationality and cognitive bias more than anything, and has no clear connection to NRx. Thus, a focus on how LW has influenced NRx in particular is as WP:UNDUE as it is in the NYT example.

If there is to be any discussion of the connection between NRx and LessWrong on Wikipedia, I believe that the neoreactionaries page should talk about LessWrong, not the other way around.

I will wait for a bit for further discussion, due to the visibility and controversy, then edit accordingly if there is no objection. Pizpa (talk) 00:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's due if sources discuss it, which they do, regardless of whether or not the site has also hosted discussions of other topics. XOR'easter (talk) 01:12, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree, considering the NYT example, but I do see that WP:UNDUE says all significant viewpoints should be represented, so I'll table that for now.

There remains the problem that Grayfell's sources don't support the claim in the article. "Discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology hosted on LessWrong have attracted the interest of neoreactionaries" would align much better with what the sources say. Pizpa (talk) 01:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I did not cite those sources for any specific claims, I copied them from the article to this talk page to simplify discussion. Some of them are likely reliable, and some are not. They will have to be evaluated on their own merits, as usual. Clearly there already are objections, so announcing plans to edit accordingly is presumptuous, at best.

The comparison to The New York Times is non-productive for multiple reasons. For one, the scale of these two topics is completely out-of-whack here. Just look at Category:The New York Times, List of The New York Times controversies, etc.. For another, many of the Wikipedia articles on the NYT include discussions of the paper's politics spanning its 172 year history. Third, attempting to appeal to what you believe "people would generally agree" for an unrelated topic based on an entirely hypothetical scenario has nothing to do with what reliable sources are saying about this situation.

Our goal is to provide context based on WP:IS. Allowing members of a community to decide which aspects are important and which are not would be indistinguishable from PR.

As an aside, I appreciate that members of the LessWrong community wish to distance themselves from the neoreactionary movement. I mean that sincerely. I find it upsetting when this kind of crap pops up in my communities, and I imagine it's the same for others. I would propose that Wikipedia isn't the platform to do this, however. Blaming the messengers for pointing out the problem doesn't solve the problem, and it makes it appear to others as if your group's motivations are tactical and PR-minded. Grayfell (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Grayfell. Could we start over? I do not participate in the LessWrong community, and it is not my goal to represent LessWrong from any particular viewpoint here. I respect Wikipedia, I respect its policies, and I want this article to be informative to people by following the policies. I am not interested in doing PR for LessWrong, I am not interested in overriding anyone's objections, and I am open to changing my mind and the way I do things based on input from experienced editors.

As I said here, what I'd like to do now is rephrase the existing text to remove a claim which I find to be unsupported by the cited sources. It seems to me that the sources you've already developed are sufficiently reliable to support that rephrased claim. What do you think? Pizpa (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a show of good faith: if there is a reliable account of the development of NRx that says it grew faster because of LW, or adopted new ideas based on influence from LW, let's say so and cite it. I have no problem with that at all. But if LW is just a place they've read stuff they're interested in and commented, "played a role in their development" seems like it would be misinterpreted by the average reader. Pizpa (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree; don't see a RS on this Secarctangent (talk) 03:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal sets an arbitrary standard that is not based on Wikipedia's norms. Per reliable sources, LessWrong's platform for discussing eugenics and dubious evolutionary psychology had consequences. Anecdotally, I glanced at LessWrong earlier today to perform a quick sanity check that it hadn't completely changed since the last time I looked at it. It hadn't. It is not a fluke that this happened, it was entirely predictable, and we're not doing a disservice to readers by summarizing these sources. Additionally, the article does clearly state that Yudkoswsky rejects neoreaction, and this is an appropriate use of a primary source.

The best way to start over would be with a specific, actionable proposal based on specific, reliable sources. Instead of writing WP:BACKWARDS from how you think the article should explain this based on blog posts or hypothetical scenarios about other topics, look at what reliable sources are actually saying. Grayfell (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific statement is: "The forum played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement".

None of the sources cited specifically say this. The fusion article is accurately cited, as it states "Thanks to LessWrong’s discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology, it has attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction".

However, the specific claim about Lesswrong playing a role in the development of the movement - the citations fail verification.

The quote in citation 15 is the following:

"Ein Hauptideengeber ist der in San Francisco lebende Software-Ingenieur Curtis Yarvin, der unter seinem Blogger-Namen Mencius Moldbug schreibt: „Bei UR“ – gemeint ist sein Blog „Unqualified Reservations“ – „kümmern wir uns nicht um Tradition. Wir akzeptieren nichts Gegebenes, dienen keinem Idol. Im Gegenteil – wir scheißen auf sie.“

Nicht zufällig waren die Keimzellen der sich auf diversen Websites artikulierenden Ideologie Blogs wie „Overcoming Bias“ oder „Less Wrong“, die sich mit künstlicher Intelligenz befassen und mit der Vorstellung, mit Hilfe von Computertechnik ewiges Leben erlangen zu können („Transhumanismus“). Bei der dort geübten „Kampfkunst der Rationalität“ geht es in den Worten des Computerforschers Eliezer Yudkowsky nicht zuerst darum, mit Hilfe des menschlichen Verstandes die Maschinen klüger zu machen, sondern vielmehr darum, mit der antizipierten Maschinenintelligenz die menschliche Vernunft zu verändern: „Wir müssen die Wissenschaft auf unsere Intuitionen anwenden, müssen das abstrakte Wissen dazu nutzen, unsere mentalen Bewegungen zu korrigieren.“"

This Google translates to:

"One of the main sources of ideas is the San Francisco-based software engineer Curtis Yarvin, who writes under his blogger name Mencius Moldbug: “At UR” – meaning his blog “Unqualified Reservations” – “we don’t care about tradition. We don’t accept anything given, we don’t serve any idol. On the contrary – we don’t give a shit about them.”

It is no coincidence that the seeds of the ideology articulated on various websites were blogs such as “Overcoming Bias” or “Less Wrong”, which deal with artificial intelligence and the idea of ​​being able to achieve eternal life with the help of computer technology (“transhumanism”). In the words of computer researcher Eliezer Yudkowsky, the “martial art of rationality” practiced there is not primarily about using the human mind to make machines smarter, but rather about using the anticipated machine intelligence to change human reason: “We must apply science to our intuitions, we must use abstract knowledge to correct our mental movements.”"

The closest quote I can find in citation 16 is the following:

"It is unclear to me how Roko’s malevolent AI found a second life on reddit, after the erasure of the original thread, and came to be popularly known as ‘Roko’s Basilisk’ or simply ‘The Basilisk’. The basilisk is a legendary, crested, snake-like being, able to poison anyone unfortunate enough to chance upon his path. The beast appears in one of the Harry Potter novels – in the Harry Potter version, the basilisk is able to petrify his victims with a gaze similar to the Medusa stare – and in some recent Manga series, but the basilisk is better known as an age-old anti-Semitic trope. In Martin Luther’s On the Jews and Their Lies (1543) the creature is identified with the ‘venomous’ Jewish folk whose pestilence is said to be lethal. Yudkowsky did dissociate himself from the white supremacist creeps in and around his blog – the ethno-nationalist blog MoreRight, run by the neoreactionary ideologue Michael Anissimov, emerged out of LessWrong, after the two men fell out with each other – but given that ‘The Basilisk’ swiftly became a prominent avatar for neoreactionary transhumanism,Footnote19 it is not far-fetched to assume that the anti-Semitic connotations are intentional. These crypto-fascist forums, which, as Philip Sandifer notes, incubated in tech culture and seem to have compromised it beyond redemption, play a major role in the production and dissemination of alt-right idioms and imagery. According to Mother Jones, the neo-Nazi website Daily Stormer – named after Der Stürmer, the unofficial propaganda organ of the Nazi party – gets the bulk of its donations from Silicon Valley, and Santa Clara County, home to Apple and Intel, are the site’s largest traffic source."

The most honest solution at this point is to remove the section that states that Lesswrong influenced the development of the neoreaction movement. The reliable sources only state that certain neoreactionary individuals interacted with the founder of this site and that a tiny proportion of site users identify with the movement. Giving it a whole section in History is totally undue weight. It's more appropriate for Yudkowsky's page or the Dark Enlightenment page. 2001:BB6:76BC:2C00:75C9:AC2B:2549:F606 (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for this - I was about to develop a similar comment myself. Again restating the text in question,

"The forum played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement" [15][16]

Let's review the supporting citations against the WP:RS standard. I'll rely on 2001's quotes, as I agree that they are the closest to supporting the claim as stated.

Citation 15: FAZ

2001's quote from the FAZ essay [15] can be read as supporting the claim that LW played a role in the development of NRx, and a well-regarded news organization like FAZ is prima facie WP:RS. However, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, we need to consider whether this specific text is of the kind that FAZ would have verified with its fact-checking processes. This is especially important today, given that news outlets now often blend factual reporting with more opinion-based analysis [5]. And the passage is clearly not one that would have been subject to fact-checking, because it presents no verifiable facts. A fact-checker cannot check whether LessWrong provided the seeds of the ideology of the neoreactionary movement. What fact-checkers can do is check whether, for example, Curtis Yarvin cited LessWrong as inspiration for an idea.

Verdict: Citation 15 is not a WP:RS for the current article text because it does not contain a verifiable factual claim that supports the article text.

Citation 16: Third Text

In 2001's pull quote I find two specific claims. First, it appears to be speculating that the basilisk was adopted by neoreaction in part for its antisemitic connotations, but I see no explicit assertion that the neoreactionary basilisk is Roko's Basilisk from LessWrong. Second, there is the note about the origin of MoreRight. This is a verifiable claim, and seems almost certain to be true. However, without a source for the prominence of Michael Anissimov in NRx, the inference that LW played a role in the development of NRx at large is somewhere between opinion and WP:OR. The site MoreRight no longer exists, and what little I can find about Anissimov suggests that he was briefly notable within NRx from roughly 2013-2015 [6] [7]. More importantly, it seems that MoreRight was founded because LessWrong was not a hospitable environment for NRx, which led to the need for a separate space.

Verdict: Citation 16 is not a WP:RS for the current article text because the article text does not accurately represent the claim made by the source. The source says that a neoreactionary who participated on LessWrong went on to found a neoreactionary website because he found LessWrong inhospitable. "LessWrong played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement" does not accurately represent the claim of this source.

Conclusion

To comply with WP:RS, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS, the FAZ citation should be removed as non-verifiable, and the article text needs to be reworked to align with the actual claim of Third Text. My proposal: "Neoreactionaries have participated as commenters on the LessWrong forum". With the right WP:RS source, this could perhaps be strengthened to prominent or influential neoreactionaries, but doing so without one would be WP:OR.

[15] Siemons, Mark (14 April 2017). "Neoreaktion im Silicon Valley: Wenn Maschinen denken". Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (in German). ISSN 0174-4909. Archived from the original on 13 June 2022. Retrieved 23 March 2019.

[16] Pinto, Ana Teixeira (4 May 2019). "Capitalism with a Transhuman Face: The Afterlife of Fascism and the Digital Frontier". Third Text. 33 (3): 315–336. doi:10.1080/09528822.2019.1625638. ISSN 0952-8822. Pizpa (talk) 14:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That argument for dismissing FAZ is pure speculation. XOR'easter (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismissing my comment without specific engagement is inappropriate here. Per WP:CONTEXTFACTS, reliable sources must contain factual claims that support the specific claims in the article. Wikipedians cannot shirk the duty of assessing whether this is actually true in a particular situation. To cast doubt on my argument, you need to respond to the specific point I made: "A fact-checker cannot check whether LessWrong provided the seeds of the ideology of the neoreactionary movement." FAZ made no specific factual claims in support of this statement, so it is not fact-checkable.

Here are some fact-checking guides respected institutions of journalism [8][9]. Fact checkers do not verify generalized narratives without specific supporting facts. Per the CUNY guide, they ask questions such as "Who says?" and "How do they know?". FAZ provided no "who" and no "how" for the "seeds" claim, so it is impossible for a fact-checker to verify the claim. In this case, a fact-checker would have to construct an entire body of facts to verify the claim without any of these facts being included in the story. This beggars belief and defeats the entire purpose of journalism, which is to provide the public with verifiable factual information, not vague narrative claims that the public is expected to take on faith in the general reliability of the institution. Pizpa (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not in a position to evaluate all the reasons that FAZ had to print what they did. Our job is only to summarize it properly. This is how Wikipedia handles all journalism. XOR'easter (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a factually incorrect statement about Wikipedia policy.

Per WP:RSCONTEXT:

"The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." The mere existence of a statement in a generally reliable source is clearly not sufficient to meet this standard.

Per WP:NEWSORG:

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

"Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

These policies require that specific claims made by news organizations be assessed for whether they are factual in nature or editorial/analysis/opinion in nature. If they are not factual claims, they can only be reported in Wikipedia as statements attributed to the author, not as facts.

With this in mind, please attend closely to the heading at the very top of the FAZ article [10], which is "Feature > Debates > The digital debate > Neoreactionaries in Silicon Valley". The subheading "Debates" is a clear indicator that this is an opinion essay, not a news article. Pizpa (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not a clear indicator that the article is an opinion column. It's a feature (Feuilleton), providing reporting on a trend. The Debatten section of FAZ's features includes things that are clearly not opinion pieces, such as interviews [11] and eyewitness reporting [12]. It's where FAZ covers Kontroverse Debatten aus Politik & Wirtschaft, controversies from politics and the economy. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that you have more context than me on this. However, I do not see you making the claim that Feuilleton or Debatten solely contain factual reporting. In English, the term "feature" is a very generic term for a broad range of pieces ranging from opinion essays to factual reporting, typically more toward the subjective "soft news" end (cf. [13]) and "debate" would dispose toward opinion. Unless the usage in German is demonstrably entirely different, the claim that this is more likely to be factual reporting than opinion is untenable.

Furthermore, the content of the FAZ article contains clear indicators of being an opinion essay. For example:

"What is crucial about them is that traditions play no role for them and they consider any kind of 'nature' to be no less a cultural and social construct than the left-wing and liberal theorists who supposedly shape the mainstream they hate so much." (Google Translated)

The claim that some group "hates so much" some other group of people is a highly emotionally charged generalization that does not normally appear in factual reporting. It is not necessarily a wrong thing to say, it may be true in some sense, but it is not within the province of factual reporting to make such emotionally charged generalizations, especially without specific supporting facts.

In light of these facts, the claim that the FAZ article is factual reporting is simply not possible to believe. It contains strong indicators of being primarily an essay of opinion or analysis. Pizpa (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Filing an article under "debates" or "controversies" does not weigh in favor of it being an opinion piece. Nor does an appeal to the supposed emotional charge of a description (and I do not think that saying a group of people hates "the mainstream" is all that emotionally charged). Rather than trying to dismiss reporting in one of Germany's major newspapers based on speculation and personal feelings about tone, one should dispute it by finding sources of comparable reliability that explicitly call its reporting into question. XOR'easter (talk) 17:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dismissing the article. Opinion and analysis essays are not bad; I have learned from them on many occasions. What I have done is question the appropriate categorization of this article. In response, you have presuppositionally labelled the article as factual reporting without support from evidence or argument, and against my evidence and argument. This is noncompliant with the policies WP:RSCONTEXT and WP:NEWSORG. Again, these policies state:

"Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."

"Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces ... are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact."

"Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis."

Presuppositional labelling without and against the best available evidence is noncompliant with these policies. There can be no reasonable supposition that a news organization which publishes a mix of reporting and opinion is reporting fact. Per policy, must assess this on a case-by-case basis. Thus, it is not my job to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt that this is an opinion essay; our duty is to weigh the best available evidence without presuppositional bias.

So far, I am the only one in this conversation who has provided positive evidence regarding the categorization of this FAZ article. You have questioned my evidence, but this does not dispose towards factual reporting, because there is no basis here for a presupposition of factual reporting.

To claim that a group "hates" another group is an emotionally charged claim. This is an objective fact, not my subjective opinion. There is nothing wrong with making such a claim, and it may be true, but it is not within the normal realm of reporting. Pizpa (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should weigh the best available evidence without presuppositional bias. But asserting that a newspaper feature said something so emotionally charged that it must be disqualified as journalism seems to be bringing in a presuppositional bias of its own.

Also, you don't need to repeatedly quote policies. I've been editing with this account since 2017; I've read them. Excessive quotation just builds up a wall of text that eventually discourages other editors from contributing to the discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since we agree presupposition is off the table, what is your positive argument for the categorization?

I appreciate the feedback on the wall of text and will try to be more concise. In return, I respectfully ask that my arguments and evidence be engaged with meaningfully and not dismissively. In particular, I respectfully ask for greater caution around the strawmanning and distortion of my statements. I did not say that the essay must be disqualified as journalism. I said that the use of emotionally charged statements was evidence (not irrefutable proof) for its categorization on the opinion or analysis side of journalism rather than the reporting side. Pizpa (talk) 17:44, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Secarctangent (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've avoided editing the page recently as I'm frankly too frustrated to do so objectively right now. But perhaps if I speak clearly about why, it will help resolve disagreements here.

This is one of several pages where an admin abused his position with an agenda best described as a blog war, and is consequently banned from editing it. This appears to be common knowledge. Actions included adding prominent discussion of two topics that caused this talk page to be so lengthy: Roko's Basilisk, and the alleged link between NRx and the website. Is this not common knowledge? The actions also included cases of what seem to me clear citation laundering of personal takes on those topics. Is this not also common knowledge?

Does a ban not imply a loss of good faith assumptions?

Because if so, I would have expected editors would subject sources on relevant issues to scrutiny for signs of having been laundered, and to ignore sources where this is plausible.

More broadly, I would have expected editors would be very skeptical of past decisions about what merited inclusion in case the page has been WP:Backwards for multiple years.

Instead I see an assumption that the system was working correctly here despite the need for a topic ban of a major editor.

I don't trust myself to litigate this neutrally right now. I sympathize with editors who suspect the neutrality of anyone proposing sweeping changes. But I hope others see the case for at least suspecting the page is WP:Backwards. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 08:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(I am primary admin of LessWrong.com, so like, huge conflict of interest here, but happy to provide any useful evidence I have as admin of the site)

I just saw someone add a "Notable Users" section which includes Curtis Yarvin. I think he doesn't have a LW account (at least I can't find any account that's obviously associated with him). The linked reference also seems to not back up that he has a LW account.

To be clear, I am not confident he never had an account (there are like 100k+ users on LW), but I've never seen a comment from him on the site, and I think he has never registered an account. If someone has a link to an account of his, that would be useful, but I think that section is currently inaccurate (I do know of accounts for everyone else listed in that section, though including Roko is IMO a bit weird given that Roko's basilisk already has its own section). Habryka (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Yarvin. The citation and nowhere else in the book seems to mention him being a user of LessWrong, but just that Scott Alexander (miswritten as "Alexander Scott") and Eliezer Yudkowsky rejected his ideology. Gbear605 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, I don't think the list is a good idea overall. Mere bullet points inevitably conflate people with different roles and levels of involvement, and we'd need reliable, independent, secondary sourcing to indicate who actually ought to be listed. And if we had documentation indicating that listing a person is warranted, we should just write about their activities in prose instead. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a proposal for a revised version of the "Notable users" section, hoping to address the above issues (in particular converting it to prose, as suggested). It now includes external sources for all LessWrong users mentioned. For Scott Alexander his early importance in the community is established in a section of a book in the Springer "Frontiers Collection" (I could include a direct quote if this is helpful). A list of other notable users, whose posts were selected for two published essay collections by community review, has been added. Apart from references to these essay collections themselves, I also include a book review by William Gasarch in the ACM SIGACT News specifically mentioning the authors included in this section. Note: I don't have extensive experience editing wikipedia, but I hope that I adhered to all relevant rules and conventions. I would be very happy for any feedback how to improve this contribution! Jojo39~dewiki (talk) 11:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the relevant section was removed, but for posterity- I did some OR and found exactly one comment by a "Mencius Moldbug". Given the timeline I think the comment was made on Overcoming Bias, and later on when LessWrong was started it was imported along with other replies to Yudkowsky's "Sequences" posts. https://www.lesswrong.com/users/mencius_moldbug TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User @Grayfell reverted edit 1234013119 with a vague comment "WP:EDITORIALIZING, WP:TONE and WP:RS issues". Asking them to defend this on this talk page, as they said they would, and in desire to meet WP:BRD norm. Secarctangent (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding this edit.

Unherd is a poor-quality outlet for both demonstrating significance and for factual claims. The included quote lacks context and was unattributed (the quote came Tom Chivers) and calling this a "cornerstone" is both uninformative and non-neutral. Find abetter source and use that source to explain why this is significant without cherry-picking.

For the line The community has grown substantially, and expanded beyond LessWrong; some commentators claim that... "Substantially" is too vague, and "some commentators claim" is both MOS:WEASEL and MOS:DOUBT.

As for the first paragraph of the 'Purpose' section, neither wording seems ideal, but whether or not rationality is actually increased is neither a settled issue, nor even a falsifiable claim, and Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion. either way.

Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, your most recent revert appears to put you in violation of WP:3RR? —Ashley Y 05:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes; I count four reverts from three distinct edits. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 12:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This revert was to fix a blatant WP:BLP violation. It doesn't count towards 3RR. XOR'easter (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. New contributors to this page would do well to carefully read WP policy pages, in this case WP:3RRBLP. Contrary to impressions that some may have, Wikipedia policies are subordinate to the overall purpose of the website (cf. WP:IGNORE). They have a spirit and intention behind them, and policy details are generally consistent with the spirit. Dedicated editors can't be held back from reverting policy violations when many occur in quick succession. Pizpa (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take these one at a time.

1. Why is Unherd a poor-quality outlet ? There's a New Yorker source we can probably use instead, but I'd like to know more about your concerns about Unherd.

2. I think the current text is not NPOV; the sourced New Yorker article claims "the center of rationalist gravity followed him, in 2013, to Slate Star Codex" which is NOT the same as "In 2013, a significant portion of the rationalist community shifted focus to Scott Alexander's [[Slate Star Codex]". These are different metaphors with different meanings and we should not treat them the same. I'm happy to hear other options, but suggest we simply quote the underlying source instead.

3. Re: Purpose, I am trying to solve the problem that we don't have a RS saying that it "promotes lifestyle changes" as far as I can tell. I think people discuss them, but I don't see how we can justify "promotes". Is there a source I'm missing ? Secarctangent (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a nice new reference has been added by User:XOR'easter:

Chivers, Tom (2019). "37. The Neoreactionaries". The Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 978-1-4746-0880-0. Another accusation is that the Rationalists are linked to the alt-right. And there is a very good and specific reason to think that they might have those links. That is that they do. The online group known as the 'Neoreactionaries', which is a sort of strange medievalist subset of the alt-right, grew out of the Rationalist movement to some extent. The even left LessWrong and founded their own website, named (spot the reference) 'More Right'. Mencius Moldbug [blogged] on Robin Hanson's Overcoming Bias before LessWrong split from it. Michael Anissimov, another prominent Neoreactionary, was until 2013 MIRI's media director.

That Moldbug blogged on Overcoming Bias was not previously known to me, and the source seems solid. Great job! However, I don't think this should be used to support "the website and the community surrounding it played a role in the development of the neoreactionary movement." The relevant fact from this source is about Overcoming Bias, not LessWrong. The part about Anissimov would support "a prominent neoreactionary was MIRI's media director, an organization founded creator of LW", not "LW played a role in the development of NRx". I think the following, slightly revised mockup would accurately represent the sources we have:

"Overcoming Bias hosted posts from Mencius Moldbug, the founder of the neoreactionary movement.[Chivers] After LessWrong split from Overcoming Bias, it too attracted the participation of neoreactionaries with discussions on the site of eugenics and evolutionary psychology.[Fusion]"

It feels less than ideal that a fact about Overcoming Bias is being highlighted in the LessWrong page, but this seems appropriately contextualized in the section overall, and the fact is that the LW page is currently the only place on Wikipedia where this story comes together. We shouldn't make the perfect the enemy of the good: accurately informing people about this community with facts from reliable sources.

Final, minor point: per our previous discussion, I maintain that FAZ is not WP:RS for any version of this claim, and should be removed. While FAZ is prima facie appealing as a news organization, IMHO the Chivers reference is superior per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS because it contains (1) a verifiable fact (2) supporting the (proposed revised) Wiki text (3) authored by an established journalist.

XOR'easter, I hope my respect for your legwork is evident. I'm hoping this proposal allows us to leave the murky FAZ discussion behind and finish with an accurate, informative page. Pizpa (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can trust this source. Searching the website, I'm not seeing any examples of Moldbug blogging on Overcoming Bias; at best, I see examples of Hanson writing up his sides of debates with Moldbug, but under Hanson's byline. Secarctangent (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. In English, a blogger is generally the main author of a blog post, not a commenter. Here is what I'm seeing online:

1. A Google search for site:overcomingbias.com moldbug turns up 32 results on Google. I quickly checked through all of them. No posts have a Moldbug byline. The posts are either Hanson-authored replies in a debate with Moldbug or they are references to Moldbug by commenters (typically on LW, which some OB links forward to).
2. In his debate with Moldbug, Hanson's tone is contemptuous, describing a response as "confused and rambling" [14] and exclaiming, with evident exasperation, "what more can one say to such a person?" [15].
3. Sandifer's book Neoreaction: a Basilisk says "one of the sites where [Moldbug] got his start as a commenter was on Overcoming Bias" (emphasis mine). Hanson is mentioned six times in my 2018 edition of the book. After checking all six, I see no instance where Moldbug is reported to have blogged on Overcoming Bias. This would have been an extremely notable moment given the topic of the book.
4. I cannot determine with certainty whether Moldbug authored posts on OB that were deleted later. However, this would have been notable at the time, and my search for overcomingbias moldbug posts "deleted" turned up no evidence of this.

The weight of evidence strongly suggests (if not beyond all doubt) that Chivers got "blogged" wrong, or was misquoted. Meanwhile, Sandifer's account is almost certainly correct, and could be verified beyond all doubt using the Wayback Machine.

Given how it is promoted, Chivers seems to be a book of feature journalism. This is a form of "soft news" that is likely to be less rigorously fact-checked, even if written by an established journalist. The book title's play on words and the book's reviews ("Beautifully written, and with wonderful humour") also suggest a relatively less serious book. Sandifer's book also has some of these qualities, but Sandifer's factual claim about Moldbug commenting is verifiable and almost certainly true, given the debate.

Per WP:EDITING, "a lack of content is better than misleading or false content". WP:NOTOR says "the best solution is to remove minor incorrect claims". While both Chivers's and Sandifer's books lack bulletproof WP:RS status, both present a verifiable fact, and Sandifer's has the advantage of being almost certainly true, while Chivers's is unlikely to be true. My conclusion: either Moldbug should be described as a commenter on Overcoming Bias, with Sandifer as the source, or the claim should be removed entirely. In my perfect world we would do the former. But as a newer editor, I am unsure if this is appropriate given reasonable WP:RS concerns about the book, and the fact that I have done some WP:OR to reach these conclusions.

Finally, I notice that the word "blogged" is in brackets in the Chivers reference. XOR'easter, I am unable to easily get this book, could you provide the original word used? Pizpa (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and made the edits proposed in my various recent talk comments. My previous comments provide WP:RS due diligence commensurate with the sensitivity of the topic, and it is long overdue to present the connection between neoreaction and LessWrong in terms of specific, verifiable facts, rather than vague narrative claims from soft news sources that fall short of WP:RS standards. Admittedly I myself have used soft news sources, but only for verifiable claims, and only after carefully fact-checking those claims myself. My interpretation of WP:OR is that we should not present original research within the article text, but we may use fact-checking work to select those secondary sources that best comply with WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and WP:CONTEXTFACTS. I believe that this interpretation is the most balanced, effective way to serve Wikipedia's dual objectives of presenting (1) accurate information (2) from reliable secondary sources. Pizpa (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an engaging history of the development of this article over 10 years:

https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p/reliable-sources-how-wikipedia-admin?ref=quillette.com

2A02:1210:2642:4A00:4920:EC75:CF4C:44CE (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous discussion of the topic is currently taking place here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Reliable_sources_controversy

From semi-noob to noob, be aware that experienced editors tend to have strongly held opinions on meta topics by the time anyone blogs about them. If you think something needs to be relitigated, be as specific as possible- eg if you think we need to reverse an old decision about Roko's Basilisk sections, make sure nobody thinks you meant to revisit Quillette's reliability status. TheDefenseProfessor (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]