Defining Authorship: Rules Clarification for the 'Write Like lsusr' Competition
Coverage of lessw-blog
In a recent post, lessw-blog outlines essential updates regarding plagiarism and ghostwriting for the "Write like lsusr" challenge, establishing clear boundaries for intellectual property and fair play.
In a recent update, lessw-blog has released a clarification regarding the rules of the "Write like lsusr" competition. As online communities increasingly engage in contests that test stylistic mimicry and creative adaptation, the boundaries between homage, theft, and legitimate authorship can become blurred. This post serves to codify those boundaries, specifically addressing the nuances of plagiarism versus consensual ghostwriting.
The competition, which challenges participants to emulate the distinctive writing style of the user "lsusr," inherently invites questions about originality. When the goal is to sound exactly like someone else, how does one define a unique contribution? The clarification provided by lessw-blog establishes a strict zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. This includes appropriating content from lsusr, other contestants, or external sources. The rationale extends beyond simple fairness; submitting another person's work violates the competition's requirement that entries must be "trivially verifiable as not lsusr." Furthermore, the post highlights that submitting third-party content constitutes a violation of copyright law, posing legal and ethical risks to the platform.
However, the most significant signal in this update lies in the distinction drawn between plagiarism and ghostwriting. While stealing content is prohibited, the organizers have clarified that consensual ghostwriting is permitted. In this context, if a participant hires a writer to produce an entry, the client (the participant) is considered the author for the purposes of the competition. This aligns with standard commercial publishing practices where intellectual property rights are transferred from the ghostwriter to the client. This rule introduces an economic dimension to the competition, acknowledging that authorship can be a function of resource allocation rather than purely personal execution.
Interestingly, the post notes that lsusr-the very figure being mimicked-is open to dollar-amount offers for ghostwriting services. This creates a meta-layer to the competition where the subject of the imitation could theoretically be hired to help a contestant win, provided the transaction is consensual and the authorship is assigned to the client. This clarification is crucial for participants to understand the permissible scope of collaboration and the strict penalties for uncredited appropriation.
For community members and observers of the LessWrong ecosystem, this update offers a fascinating glimpse into how niche communities govern intellectual property and identity. It underscores the importance of clear rule-setting in environments where anonymity and pseudonymity are common.
We recommend reading the full clarification to understand the specific constraints and opportunities this creates for entrants.
Read the full post on LessWrong
Key Takeaways
- Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited and disqualifies the entrant.
- Submitting work written by others without their consent violates verification protocols and copyright law.
- Consensual ghostwriting is explicitly permitted; the client is viewed as the author.
- The user 'lsusr' is reportedly open to providing ghostwriting services for a fee.