Wikipedia

Talk:LessWrong

Latest comment: 26 days ago by Simonm223 in topic Connection to Neoreactionaries
Learn more about this page

Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Zizians didn't comment much on LW

edit
Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

(Context: I run LessWrong.com, so have an obvious COI in editing this page, so am not doing so directly, but it seems reasonable to open up a discussion here)

The current wiki article says:

> The Zizians formed within the community surrounding LessWrong, with many members, including founder Ziz LaSota, commenting frequently on the site.

There is no source that supports this, as far as I can tell. Also, I am not aware of "frequent" comments by Zizians. There is an account named "Ziz" with 16 comments and a few posts none of which received much engagement. There is an account for "Daniel Blank" with zero comments. I am not aware of any others. I think just removing the "commenting frequently on the site" would be more accurate, and also stick closer to the source quote it's drawing from:

> Their collective exile from the rationalist community was virtually complete. They were banned from LessWrong.com, along with various CFAR meetups and conferences. An anonymous rationalist launched a site, Zizians.info, branding them "the Zizians" for the first time and warning that the group was a cult. Habryka (talk) 07:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I edited to stick more closely to what the source says. Alenoach (talk) 08:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
That seems like a reasonable edit! Thank you! Habryka (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

Connection to Neoreactionaries

edit
Latest comment: 26 days ago38 comments8 people in discussion

The connection of LessWrong and other rationalist blogs to the neoreactionary movement is widely commented on. See also the relevant sources cited in rationalist community. Therefore, it does not put undue weight to mention it in this article, as @Secarctangent is trying to imply. Eigenbra (talk) 15:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply

I think you are misunderstanding the material that's being removed. The material being removed is an WP:UNDUE inclusion of a single survey to suggest that there is less connection between LessWrong and neoreaction than reported by other RS. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
What reliable sources are you referring to in "than reported by other RS"? I'm not familiar with Fusion TV and don't see it on WP:RSP, so I didn't try to restore that source. I did check the Google Books link provided for the 2020 source to verify the claims and publisher info. I'm struggling to understand your perspective on why a published book would be WP:UNDUE. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 19:20, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Which sources are relevant? I only see the New Yorker article used near a mention of "neoreaction". WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Last time I looked Neoreaction: A Basilisk was cited here. I suppose it's possible it got cut... Simonm223 (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Sandifer created Eruditorum Press. I would consider that book essentially a WP:SELFPUB. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Really convenient to say nearly the only person who isn't in the community to write about its politics doesn't count. Simonm223 (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
If you had sources to support your position, you've now had an opportunity to share them. Also, I didn't say N:AB could not be included in some form, but it doesn't appear to support your position. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It makes multiple references to LessWrong as a hub of neoreactionary discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
So your takeaway from that is to remove all sources that mention Neoreaction from this article? I remain confused. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
No, my takeaway was to remove the cherrypicked claims that LessWrong is not a hub of neoreactionary discourse as undue and non-neutral. Simonm223 (talk) 13:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
And your response was just to revert claiming it was stable. WP:ONUS for inclusion lies with the party who wants to include material. I am not the only editor to have removed that edit. You should self-revert. Simonm223 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oppose adding Simonm223's non-RS sourced, undue content. Secarctangent (talk) 16:37, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Please actually look at the content you are reviewing before removing. My material came from a peer reviewed WP:BESTSOURCE and it absolutely was not edit warring. Simonm223 (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Peer review doesn't mean that a source is RS: "A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs" Secarctangent (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, it might be RS and I might be wrong, but an assertion that a journal is peer reviewed is insufficient to make something RS. Secarctangent (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I've started a WP:RS/N thread to clarify that Third Text is a reliable source despite your... unorthodox interpretation of WP:BESTSOURCES. Simonm223 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I will note that Third Text is a deeply respected journal and Ana Teixeira Pinto is a deeply respected academic. Your speculation that it might not be an RS is, meanwhile, entirely ungrounded. Simonm223 (talk) 17:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
You continue to fail to provide any evidence of your claim, which might be right.
Note that this is still WP:UNDUE and I object to its addition on this point, and you should seek consensus before adding this edit. Secarctangent (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I support citing the Third Text source in the article. I think it's reliable. Zero Contradictions (talk) 18:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I support adding this high-quality source. @Simonm223 has repeatedly provided evidence that you could easily check by following a few links. Instead, you are choosing to ignore evidence in favor of being disruptive. Eigenbra (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I agree based on the discussion on WP:RS/N that this is a RS for art, even though it seems odd to cite it for other purposes.
Engage on WP:UNDUE, please. I see a revert made https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LessWrong&oldid=1304381364 that has not engaged with this latter concern. I am not reverting it because I don't want folks to think I'm edit warring instead of in good faith.
However, please explain why this degree of focus on a minority of a minority of an obscure web forum's views is "appropriate to its significance to the subject"? Secarctangent (talk) 22:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I think the preceding paragraph in the Neoreaction section makes it clear to readers that Neoreactionaries are indeed a small minority of users on the LessWrong forum. Nevertheless, I think that LessWrong still has a strong enough connection to the neo-reactionary movement to satisfy WP:UNDUE and make it worth mentioning in the article. Like, why the ethnonationalist blog "More Right" emerge on LessWrong, rather than some other place on the Internet? In any case, I think most people would be able to discern that only a minority of the LessWrong community has ethnonationalist or "fascist" views, due to the appropriate and well-source preceding paragraph.
I think Loki made a good point on the WP:RS/N thread about how Third Text may have questionable reliability regarding the accuracy of statements on politics, economics, and technology, due to its focus on art. I never considered this point, but I hope other people discuss it. I think that Simonm223 and Alalch E. have been unnecessarily aggressive in their responses to you, and I apologize for that. Zero Contradictions (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I sometimes forget that a lot of people don't spend as much time reading interdisciplinary humanities journals as I do. Just to clarify and, per @Bobfrombrockley below as well, Third Text may be an "art theory" journal but this very much includes political theory. And, in particular please remember that a key definition of fascism is the Walter Benjamin definition of fascism as the aestheticization of politics. As such a journal that is heavily involved in aesthetic theory has, you know, valid things to say about that. Beyond this there is the author, Ana Teixeira Pinto, whose work absolutely is involved with politics such as in the book Death Wall: Entropy and the Chronopolitics of Modernity. It's rather frustrating, when dealing with a niche political topic, to be told that two of the very few legitimate experts to have written at any length on the topic somehow don't count. I went to Pinto instead of getting into an argument about Sandifer's work constituting an WP:EXPERTSPS position but the immediate response was to claim Pinto was unreliable. Frankly it seems like certain editors think only Curtis Yarvin is reliable to talk about this community. That is unacceptable. Simonm223 (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I am sure you have a very high IQ and all, but has this got anything to do with the article? jp×g🗯️ 14:19, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
It's an explanation of why this source is a good and reliable one, despite objections that it is an "art theory" journal. BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Multiple reputable sources make the connection between LessWrong and neoreaction. On the other hand, your source for the claim that this is a minority of a minority among LessWrong is an informal community survey, which is clearly not reliable. I don't know what you mean by "this degree of focus", but clearly this connection warrants a subsection, and is in no way undue. Eigenbra (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I would appreciate you not making inaccurate claims about my sourcing.
My reason for saying that this is a "minority of a minority" is that she is referencing some activity individuals who posted on another splinter blog, this "More Right" thing, as far as I can tell? Secarctangent (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Ziz LoSota is also a minority (an individual) of a minority (the Zizians), but he is nevertheless mentioned in the article because there is a reliable source that reported on him. Zero Contradictions (talk) 00:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Support inclusion of this material. Third Text, an interdisciplinary journal, is a reliable source for the subjects of its articles and not just for a narrow art topics and is certainly reliable for this. If multiple RSs make the connection, it is due. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
She also explicitly mentions Roko's Basilisk and Yarvin's (objectively hilarious) reaction to it and describes the Basilisk incident at some length, demonstrating it as being significant to her overall thesis. Or are Yarvin and Roko fringe figures at the LessWrong community? Simonm223 (talk) 11:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yarvin and Roko absolutely are fringe figures in the LessWrong community, if that. Yarvin in particular had almost no interactions, and Roko’s involvement has been minimal and most of it was fifteen years ago. The infamous basilisk seems to have been much more of a thing outside of the LessWrong community than inside it. Gbear605 (talk) 14:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yarvin is a fringe figure... on his blog... that he owns... I'm sorry but that doesn't track. Simonm223 (talk) 14:13, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Curtis Yarvin does not own LessWrong in any sense. If it's owned by anyone, it's Oliver Habryka (who is the CEO of the company that runs LessWrong) or Eliezer Yudkowsky (who founded the site), and neither of them are Yarvin, who runs an entirely different blog and who both Yudkowsky and Habryka have stated they disagree with strongly. Gbear605 (talk) 14:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I'll strike that as in error. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
In light of this, it is somewhat concerning to me that you are making reverts on the article on the aforementioned basis of your own authority in the subject matter. If I was reverting on World War II and arguing on the talk page, and I realized I was wrong about which countries Roosevelt and Hirohito were in charge of, I would probably disengage. jp×g🗯️ 14:28, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
For what it's worth, I only see a single revert by @Simonm223 on this article in the last three months. You might be overreacting. Eigenbra (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I made a stupid factual mistake because I was upset. I owned up to it and struck immediately. And, yeah, I've not been reverting much at all here in part because I'm actually very strict with myself about edit warring behaviour and avoid second reverts most of the time. None of my contributions violated any policy. Simonm223 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LessWrong&oldid=1304532915"