I strongly recommend people on the EA forum do not downvote outsiders, especially an actual WSJ journalist writing a story about EA, unless they actually post content that violate forum norms or rules.
I (very briefly) skimmed it and didn’t see any major red flags.
With less intensity, we should discourage the framing of “auditing” very established journalists for red flags, or create “whitelists” for such. There are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!). This is hard to calibrate and communicate.
Zooming out, there’s a lot of say here about the voting and forum. There’s this “beauty contest” that exists mainly inside the heads of a few on this forum. This behavior is entirely transparent and probably will backfire.
with less intensity, we should discourage the framing of ‘auditing’ very established journalists for red flags
Why? If I was making a decision to be interviewed by Rachel or not, probably the top thing I’d be worried about is whether they’ve previously written not-very-journalistic hit pieces on tech-y people (which is not all critical pieces in general! some are pretty good and well researched). I agree that there’s such thing as going too far, but I don’t think my comment was doing that.
I think “there are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!)” is wrong? There have been tons of examples of kind of crap articles in usually highly credible newspapers. For example, this article in the NYT seemed to be pretty wrongand not that good.
To the rest of the forum:
I strongly recommend people on the EA forum do not downvote outsiders, especially an actual WSJ journalist writing a story about EA, unless they actually post content that violate forum norms or rules.
With less intensity, we should discourage the framing of “auditing” very established journalists for red flags, or create “whitelists” for such. There are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!). This is hard to calibrate and communicate.
Zooming out, there’s a lot of say here about the voting and forum. There’s this “beauty contest” that exists mainly inside the heads of a few on this forum. This behavior is entirely transparent and probably will backfire.
Why? If I was making a decision to be interviewed by Rachel or not, probably the top thing I’d be worried about is whether they’ve previously written not-very-journalistic hit pieces on tech-y people (which is not all critical pieces in general! some are pretty good and well researched). I agree that there’s such thing as going too far, but I don’t think my comment was doing that.
I think “there are situations this is valid (but not for the WSJ!)” is wrong? There have been tons of examples of kind of crap articles in usually highly credible newspapers. For example, this article in the NYT seemed to be pretty wrong and not that good.