Talk:Lesswrong:Aboutpage

From Lesswrongwiki
Revision as of 15:40, 21 March 2012 by Matt (talk | contribs) (link to data on landing page traffic)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

I've been trying to improve this about page in line with the suggestions I made in my recent discussion post, but User:Grognor has been reverting my edits. I'd like to work with Grognor to find a version of the page we both agree on. It would be great to hear other users weigh in on this issue. I don't see the downside of making my suggested changes; even if Grognor does not think cultish appearances are a problem, others like me do, and it seems like we ought to be able to find a way to write the about page that avoids them and is just as effective in other respects as the old about page.--John Maxwell IV 23:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop talking about me like I'm some kind of malevolent force that only wants to crush your dreams. Grognor 05:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I removed most of my references to you.--John Maxwell IV 06:50, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Man, let's just chill out and relax. The name of the game is Bold, Revert, Discuss, brother. You and Groggy need to talk about your feelings for a while. Then we can come to a consensus about the about page. Paper-machine 06:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

paper machine, what do you like about the virtues so much? If you look at this thread I linked to, there are several people expressing ambivalence about them. If you just want us to have a long about page, do you think you could replace the virtues with some other content? Also, wedrifed said he never liked the virtues page, with a cough... What else is that supposed to mean?

I have a lot of ideas for this page and I'd really like to rethink it from the ground up, but I'm not going to invest the time in that if even simple, apparently widely supported changes like this are reverted. Less wrong has a ton of great stuff in its archives, and I don't see any reason to immediately showcase a controversial piece. I don't object to linking to the virtues in a non-cultish way, but reproducing them entirely doesn't seem like the best use of space. Although really, ideally we would not mention them at all since they are not hosted on Less Wrong. This is the about page for Less Wrong, so we should showcase things that are written here. There are plenty of introductory pieces on this domain.--John Maxwell IV 06:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that we know at this point that the change is "apparently widely supported". On the other hand, I'm merely ambivalent about actually removing the section. --Vladimir Nesov 10:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with JM4 on non-inclusion of the 12 Virtues. They are: 1. awesome; 2. unfortunately weird in this context (their weirdness works in other contexts); 3. inconveniently long in this context. --Matt 05:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with this argument. Paper-machine 19:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
JM4-- I have no personal stake in whether or not the virtues appear on the about page. I have no personal stake in having "a long about page." My problem is with your mishandling of consensus. Currently I count two people in that thread that are "expressing ambivalence" about the virtues; that is not "several people." Saying "several people", and then saying "also, wedrifed (sic) said," double-counts evidence. My goals are 1) to diffuse an edit war and 2) build consensus. Given Matt's points above, I currently agree that it's reasonable to remove the twelve virtues from the about page. Paper-machine 19:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
You're right that changes to this page should be taken seriously, and that I prematurely declared the conflict decided. Let me know if you think sufficient consensus has been built to remove the 12 virtues---I'm a wiki amateur.--John Maxwell IV 00:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

How would you guys feel about a "best less wrong newcomer experience" contest where entrants would rewrite this and Lesswrong:Homepage? I really think they could use additional optimization pressure, especially given that there is content duplicated between the two pages. They are some of the most viewed pages on the site.--John Maxwell IV 06:42, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Some data on landing page traffic: http://lesswrong.com/lw/at9/what_if_the_front_page/611q --Matt 05:40, 21 March 2012 (UTC)