Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Effective Altruism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Made some redirects

I've created some redirects that could be expanded into full articles:

Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 17:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject

Hello Eric Herboso, Ego.Eudaimonia, Vermeer dawn, Sir Paul, Throughthemind, Cuvs, 4hedons, RyanCarey1, Sbyrnes321, Xodarap00, Niel.Bowerman, Silence, Biogeographist, Max.schons, Seaweed_Llama, and MontanNito!

Thank you all for supporting the WikiProject proposal for effective altruism! Now that the WikiProject has been created, I would like to invite you to take a few moments to list yourself as a participant of the WikiProject here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Effective Altruism#Participants. Although this WikiProject is currently very barebones, over the coming weeks, I will be working to develop it further. —Enervation (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Request for edits on ACE

I have a conflict of interest for the Animal Charity Evaluators page because I'm a part of that organization. Could I get someone else here (who doesn't have a COI) to make a few edits to that page? The infobox has old info: it lists an executive director, managing director, and managing editor that no longer work at ACE. Also, current structure at ACE has the ED at the top, and then the director level positions are all equal under it, so it feels weird to list only some director positions and not others. My recommendation is to list only the ED, but as I have a COI, I'll defer to whatever others think is best here. — Eric Herboso 23:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done 🙂 Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 04:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Page for Centre for Effective Altruism

Currently, CEA doesn't have its own page; Centre for Effective Altruism instead redirects to 80,000 Hours, but 80K is only one suborg of CEA. We should probably create a page for CEA describing all of its current and former suborgs, including:

At the least, we can create a category for all of CEA's suborgs and programs. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 19:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't easily find reliable sources covering the Centre for Effective Altruism in substantive detail, which is a big issue for its Wikipedia:Notability. See Google News results for CEA—the articles just mention it in passing. I see you've already created a category for CEA, which looks good to me. Enervation (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be news sources. You can also use books as sources, so long as they meet the WP:ORG criteria. Not all the books in this link qualify, but so long as the author isn't a CEA employee, and so long as the mention of CEA in the book is significant (and not just a single line or page), these should work as the necessary requirements for notability. (I haven't actually checked to ensure that enough book sources exist, but it seems likely that they do from a quick glance at the search engine result page.) — Eric Herboso 23:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, I would be surprised if any of these books have significant coverage of CEA. Doing Good Better definitely does not, as I just did a search operation on my e-book. What CEA does is just not that interesting or relevant unless you're deep in the weeds of EA community-building. Maybe you could write an interesting news article about how CEA is organizing EA Global, but I haven't seen one which substantively covers CEA. —Enervation (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

GWWC updated their logo in November 2021; a large version of their new logo can be found on this page. We should upload it here, but I wonder if it can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons instead as a public domain logo.

In any case, the previous GWWC logo is labeled as a non-free image even though it is pure text; the same goes for the 80K logo. We should update the description pages and upload vector versions of these logos if possible. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have corrected the copyright information on the old GWWC logo and 80K logo. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I have asked directly to GWWC about the logo. MontanNito (talk) 10:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added a vectorized version of the new GWWC logo here and updated the article. Throughthemind (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
And 80,000 hours here. Throughthemind (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
You all are brilliant, thanks for doing this! :) Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Priorisation

I have created a list to gather all relevant articles and their pageviews in the last 30 days: Wikipedia:WikiProject Effective Altruism/Article pageviews. This might be helpful in order to prioritise on which articles to work. --MontanNito (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@MontanNito: It would be best to create such a list here on Wikipedia so that it stays permanently part of the freely licensed record in the wiki. You can create a sortable table in a wiki page, so it's not necessary to send Wikipedians off-wiki to view one. You could put the table in a subpage of this WikiProject, or you could just put it in this talk page section. Biogeographist (talk) 23:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: Sure. Done: Wikipedia:WikiProject Effective Altruism/Article pageviews. Feel free to move it around if you think it should be in another location. (I edit the first comment and change the external link for convenience of future readers.) MontanNito (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
We might as well talk about how we're going to assign importance ratings. So far, I've been assigning them based on a topic hierarchy, so for example:
But I see that some of us are interested in prioritizing articles based on page hits. I think that's valid, and we could combine both approaches (for example, we've given Malaria high importance). Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 08:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Just to make it clear, by creating the list I am not saying that this should be the only factor to consider for priorisation, but one of them. I have updated the subpage for clarity. MontanNito (talk) 10:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I have now added a section on article prioritisation to the WikiProject's main page; please feel free to add to and improve the section. Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Scope of Category:Effective altruism

@Qzekrom: What articles do we intend to have under Category:Effective altruism? Should it be people, organizations, and concepts that are explicitly associated with effective altruism? (I think so.) Does LessWrong belong? (I would say maybe, leaning no.) Michael Kremer? (I would say yes, since he is a Giving What We Can member.) Intensive animal farming? (No.) OpenAI? (No.) I added Template:WikiProject Effective Altruism to a lot of pages, so this list of pages with that template may be useful for knowing articles to add Category:Effective altruism to. We might also want to make subcategories for 1) people in effective altruism and 2) organizations in effective altruism. —Enervation (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I've created Category:People associated with effective altruism Throughthemind (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
And I've now created Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism. I think this is preferable to adding all EA-relevant organizations to the main EA category parent page. Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is much cleaner 🙂 Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 16:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I've also added categories for Category:Books about effective altruism and Category:Essays about effective altruism Throughthemind (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Task "Populate Category:Giving What We Can members"

I saw that a task for populating Category:Giving What We Can members was created in the main page of the WikiProject. Note that I did this earlier this year and the category was removed in August. See rationale here. MontanNito (talk) 10:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the rationale. I would stick with Category:People associated with effective altruism. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the rationale too, but I appreciate you raising this, MontanNito. Let's keep an eye out for other lists like this that may have slipped through the cracks. Jmill1806 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Importance, neglectedness, and tractability

I've created a new draft for the ITN framework. The draft is located at Draft:Importance, neglectedness, and tractability, although I think the WP:COMMONNAME may be "Importance, tractability, and neglectedness", and the lead paragraph reflects that. I'd appreciate any help you all can give me, especially with expanding the text and adding categories! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 22:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Article assessment for Dylan Matthews

I've rated the article Dylan Matthews as C-class, low importance for this project; see my comments here. The only serious issue is this unsourced claim, which violates WP:BLP, and we should fix it ASAP:

Matthews is the son of Jim Matthews, creator of Fetch, who won $500,000 on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? in December 2000.[citation needed]

Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Organ donation articles

I've added a bunch of articles about organ donation to the WikiProject; most of them are C- or start-class, so they could use improvement. I wasn't sure whether to rate Organ donation as C- or B-class. You can check my contribution history for the full list of articles I tagged. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 20:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Assessing page quality

A lot of articles related to effective altruism are presently rated as "start class" according to other WikiProjects. But when I look at the project based on the guidelines set out in Wikipedia:Assessing articles and Wikipedia:Content assessment, I find myself wanting to assign the article a higher rating. Here is the description of "start class":

An article that is developing but still quite incomplete. It may or may not cite adequate reliable sources. The article has a usable amount of good content but is weak in many areas. Quality of the prose may be distinctly unencyclopedic, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style compliance non-existent. The article should satisfy fundamental content policies, such as Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Frequently, the referencing is inadequate, although enough sources are usually provided to establish verifiability.

OpenAI and The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity are rated as start-class, but the articles are actually quite thorough and well-written. Cari Tuna is rated as stub-class, but I'm not sure how if there's much to expand on the article.

Besides following the guidelines from Wikipedia:Content assessment, we want the process of content assessment to be useful for understanding which articles should be prioritized for improvement, and which are already decent enough. For that purpose, it's not useful to rate most pages as start-class even when they are quite adequate, lest we label all the inadequate articles as stub class even when they are not stubs.

Would I be wrong to rate these sorts of articles as C-class or higher? —Enervation (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Enervation: You can change the quality ratings if you think they deserve a higher rating, but for now, we should only do it for this WikiProject. We can ask the other projects that have banners on each page if it's okay to update their ratings to match, or otherwise coordinate with them. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good to me! —Enervation (talk) 23:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@Enervation: Based on Sbyrnes321's comment below, I think it's fine to change the ratings for other WikiProjects as long as their quality criteria are substantially the same. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

My experience is that the ratings rarely get changed even when they become wildly inaccurate, either because nobody cares about the ratings, and/or because nobody thinks it's their place to change the ratings. So if a rating seems wrong, it probably is. I wouldn't overthink it. Just my opinion. --Steve (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sbyrnes321: That makes sense! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Improving the Effective Altruism article

I've seen several people mention a desire to improve the main article on effective altruism. What would be the best way to coordinate those efforts? Coordinating on the talk page for that article? Coordinating here? Somewhere else? I haven't done much collaborative editing work so I wanted to ask up front. I believe I saw Ruthgrace, Biogeographist, and Enervation mention interest in this, among others. Thanks! Seaweed Llama (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at Talk:Effective altruism if you are interested in improving the main article; there is some backstory (past discussion) there that you can review. Then just go ahead and start editing the article, which is how most progress on Wikipedia happens. If you want to make changes that you think will be controversial, you can ask for feedback at Talk:Effective altruism first if you wish, but again, WP:BOLD editing is encouraged on Wikipedia. Biogeographist (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Seaweed Llama, I intend to ask for another good article review (after doing a few reviews myself to help them with their backlog), to help sort out any content/copy-editing disagreements that we can't resolve ourselves. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm running into a roadblock here where I want to add all the content that I think is necessary before asking for a good article review but User:Biogeographist won't really let me. It would help if other people weighed in at Effective_altruism#Copy_editing, under Editing goals so we can come to an agreement. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:23, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It's not true that I won't let Ruthgrace add content. Regarding the most recent content added, all I did was move the content that was added. This happens all the time on Wikipedia. And other changes previously recommended were accepted. I am opposed to Ruthgrace's idea of splitting off the philosophy into a separate article. This is being discussed at Talk:Effective altruism. Biogeographist (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Fun facts about The Alignment Problem?

Jmill1806 just created an article for The Alignment Problem! Can anyone think of a fun fact or "hook" about the book? That way, we can nominate it to be included in the Did you know? box of Wikipedia's main page. Maybe "Did you know… that The Alignment Problem was one of "5 books that inspired Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella this year"?" I'm not sure that's quite interesting enough though. —Enervation (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps one could consider some of the "10 Hollywood-worthy stories" discussed in the relevant 80,000 Hours podcast episode? I haven't myself listened to the episode, though, and the stories may be more suitable as fun facts for some of the topics the book discusses than for the book itself. Pablo (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Enervation: I can't think of any 😕 Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:24, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Good Ventures article

I noticed that Good Ventures is tagged as being written like an advertisement. I'll put some time into fixing it over the next month. Ruthgrace (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

After looking carefully at the sources of the article and doing some research on reputable media sites, I think that the Good Ventures article should all of its valuable content moved to the Open Philanthropy (organization) article, and then deleted. There's a lot of news about Open Philanthropy, but there's not very much about Good Ventures. I think this is because Good Ventures just holds the money, and Open Philanthropy does the research and makes the grants. So I will refocus my efforts to improving the Open Philanthropy article. Ruthgrace (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure about merging the two articles, but I'm not that familiar with the difference between Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures. Good Ventures is its own organization which has substantial coverage in reliable sources. While Good Ventures and Open Philanthropy are very close, supposedly Open Philanthropy is just a "partner", and Good Ventures "largely relies on the research and recommendations of staff employed by Open Philanthropy" (emphasis added). Enervation (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Enervation, I wasn't able to find very much on Good Ventures through a Google News search. Could you show me what you mean by "substantial coverage in reliable sources"? As it stands, most of the citations on Good Ventures are primary sources: the GiveWell blog, writings by Cari Tuna or Holden Karnofsky, and conversations directly from the Good Ventures website.
I found way more stuff about Open Philanthropy. I started collecting relevant info from articles in a Google Doc here in preparation for editing the article. Ruthgrace (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Images for people and organizations associated with effective altruism

A relatively straightforward and well-defined task is to obtain freely usable photos of any individuals and organization logos missing from entries in People associated with effective altruism and Organizations associated with effective altruism. Does anyone have suggestions on how to go about doing this, and particularly how to allocate responsibility so that effort is not duplicated and no entries slip through the cracks? Pablo (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sir Paul: We could make a subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Effective Altruism/to do titled "Wanted images" with a table of the images requested, the pages they're for, and the users assigned to request each one. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I had already asked CEA about the EA logo (they said they would check with their ops team). I'll go ahead and ask for images too, while I'm at it. :) Ruthgrace (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Qzekrom and Ruthgrace: Great. I added a subsection here. I did this before noticing the suggestion to use a table, which I agree would be better than a list, but I may turn the list into a table later today if I find some time. Pablo (talk) 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
For mainspace articles, it's not necessary for the images to be free, but we need to respect Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. In contrast, the logo for this WikiProject would need to be free since it's not a mainspace article. —Enervation (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sir Paul: Thank you! I filled out the Organizations section. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: Great, thanks! I found an image for Kelsey Piper and marked that task as "done". I'm not sure if that's how we want to handle tasks, so if anyone has a preference for a particular system, feel free to comment. Pablo (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sir Paul: Awesome! I think it's best to move the list item to the section "Good images" if you add a high-quality image to the article. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 21:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I want more images! I sent a version of this to Rob at AMF, as well as Deworm the World and GiveDirectly, and will post on the Charity Entrepreneurship slack. Feel free to use this template to request images from other organizations. (and yes, I consider you all my friends)
Hi [ORGANIZATION NAME] team,
Myself and a group of friends have been editing Effective Altruism related articles on Wikipedia, and I could use your help: One of the criteria for an article to get to Good Article status is having illustrations. The catch is that the image would have to be licensed as Creative Commons, e.g. the Creative Commons NonCommercial license. This means that anyone using the image would have to attribute the image back to your organization, and it can't be used for commercial purposes. Are there any photographs that [ORGANIZATION NAME] can share that we can use to illustrate articles on Wikipedia?
Ruthgrace (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Just heard back from CEA: They don't want the heartbulb logo to be creative commons, because then it could be used for non-EA stuff. However they checked with the photographers and it's OK for us to upload any images taken by Nikki Richer (SF Global 2018-2019) and Martin Burton (EAG London 2018-2021) to Wikipedia as Creative Commons. If I have time later I'll see if I can dig some of these photos up, and upload some nice ones as Creative Commons non-commercial. You're welcome to, also! 174.89.171.41 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
They don't want the heartbulb logo to be creative commons, because then it could be used for non-EA stuff That's unfortunate.
If I have time later I'll see if I can dig some of these photos up, and upload some nice ones as Creative Commons non-commercial. We can't use the NC licenses as they are non-free licenses. Only CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are acceptable. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:31, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh no, that's my mistake that I told them non-commercial was OK! Sorry. Hmm, asking organizations to give up their images including for use by other people who can make money off of it is actually a pretty difficult ask. I'm not sure where to go from here... Maybe if anyone sees a particularly nice image from one of these EA globals, we could ask if that one can be made CC-BY or CC-BY-SA? Ruthgrace (talk) 04:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Could we use this alternative heartbulb logo instead, at least for non-mainspace page where we need an EA logo? I think you could argue that it's only made of simple shapes and not eligible for copyright (below the threshold of originality. [1] —Enervation (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

@Enervation: I'd rather not, since it represents a specific EA project and not the entirety of EA (and thus wouldn't be in the spirit of trademark law). But I've been thinking about a logo for the project! I'll start a discussion on that in a new section. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 01:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Help me recategorize images of the Black Death in art (on Commons)!

Hi all, I just created a category on Commons titled Category:Black Death in art, and I'd like some help moving images in its parent categories Category:Black Death and Category:Plague in art into this category where appropriate. If you have HotCat enabled, you can do this by clicking the ± symbol next to either of these categories and replacing that category with Category:Black Death in art. If an image is in both parent categories, then both categories should be replaced with it. Thanks! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

There's now a barnstar available for this project, see Template:The Effective Altruism Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 22:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for making this! —Enervation (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
This is really cool! Thanks for creating it, Jerm. -- Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Improving coverage of social discount rate (with WikiProject Econ)

I think we should try to improve the coverage of the social discount rate on Wikipedia, together with WikiProject Economics. The SDR is relevant to longtermism and climate change, but right now the coverage of this topic is not adequate: in particular, the Social discount rate article currently doesn't go into much detail about the Ramsey formula, nor does it cite a source for it. We could try to improve the following related articles as well:

Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 23:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Qzekrom! I think that's an excellent idea. Hilary Greaves has written a particularly helpful summary article which explains many of the above aspects (discount rates, Ramsey equation, pure time preference, etc.): "Discounting for public policy: A survey" Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ego.Eudaimonia: Thanks for sharing this resource with us! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Commitment to Development Index 2021

I've started adding the updated Commitment to Development Index scores for 2021 to the article; I plan to create the new table in this sandbox, then move it to the article when I'm done. I'd appreciate any help you all can give me - whether it's filling in the data or correcting any entries I may have copied incorrectly. All the data is on this page, and you can switch between regular and income-adjusted ratings. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:35, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft on Ayuda Efectiva

I've started working on a draft on Ayuda Efectiva, an EA org based in Spain. Since there's already an article about it on the Spanish Wikipedia, I believe the org most likely meets the notability criteria, and creating it would be a quick win for us. Also, it'd be a step towards countering systemic bias on English Wikipedia, as a lot of information on topics related to Spanish-speaking countries is on eswiki but not enwiki. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Awesome! Note that non-English Wikipedias may have different notability criteria, so you can't automatically assume that because an article exists on a non-English Wikipedia, it would be good for English Wikipedia. But I can see that Ayuda Efectiva has substantial coverage in El País, The Objective, and Correspondables, so that looks solid to me. Wikipedia has a content translation tool which you may find helpful. —Enervation (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@MontanNito: Would you like to help me? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 19:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: I've completed the translation. Feel free to add any categories as you see appropriate. MontanNito (talk) 22:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I'll add categories and tighten up the wording. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 22:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: I've submitted the draft for AFC review. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 22:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Submission rejected

Update: My AFC submission was rejected on the grounds that it doesn't reflect the encyclopedic tone expected of Wikipedia articles. The reviewer's full comment:

This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.

@Enervation, MontanNito, and Ruthgrace: Would any of you like to help me address these problems with the draft and get it ready for a resubmission? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 22:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Qzekrom, I made a big copy edit to your draft. Take a look and see what elements of my edit you'd like to keep or change back. I removed words like "very" and "highly". Ruthgrace (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ruthgrace: That's great! There's a few other issues right now - I don't know what's in the [7] source since it's an audio interview in Spanish, so I don't know what we can say about "malaria, parasitic worms, and vitamin A deficiency" based on the source. Also, some sentences in the lead need attention as they appear to combine information from different sources and cite too many sources at a time (see WP:OVERCITE and WP:SYNTH). Idk if you can help me decode the Spanish sources, but if not, we should find out if there's a place on Wikipedia where we can get help with that. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:42, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I don't know any Spanish unfortunately. Best of luck, though! Ruthgrace (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

EA Hub

I've created a page for this WikiProject on EA Hub. The purpose is to let people in the EA community know that this project exists, but I don't want this project to be considered an "EA group" because I want it to be independent, like Future Perfect. Let me know if you would like to be listed as an organizer on the EA Hub page. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Good thinking, Qzekrom! Thanks for taking the initiative. -- Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
You can add me, Qzekrom! Sorry, i just realized my EA Hub profile was set to private. It's https://eahub.org/profile/ruth-grace-wong/ Ruthgrace (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ruthgrace: I don't have my EA Hub account anymore (for privacy reasons). You can click "Claim this group" on the group page to add yourself - at least I think that should work. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 05:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! It says the admin will have to check to approve me claiming the group. I can help manage any requested updates if anyone tags me or if anyone else wants to also be an organizer. Looks like Eric is also an organizer. Ruthgrace (talk) 15:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Images of Holden Karnofsky and Cari Tuna

I've asked Open Phil for permission to use the portraits of Holden Karnofsky and Cari Tuna from their website. I'll keep you all posted when they respond. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 02:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Nice! Would it be possible to request a photo of William MacAskill too? The Centre for the Study of Existential Risk have a good photo here. Throughthemind (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Throughthemind: I'm sure we can ask, but that photo is grainy. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 16:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Qzekrom There's some decent quality photos on MacAskill's site here (this is a higher-quality version linked previously). Throughthemind (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Update: Open Phil has agreed to upload their Holden portrait to File:Holden Karnofsky 0.jpg; the VRTS ticket (what used to be OTRS) is still being processed. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Throughthemind: The Holden image from Open Phil is still pending approval by VRT, so I wouldn't mark the item as done yet. In the meantime, we can try uploading other photos of Holden. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 01:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Update: Looks like the Holden image has been approved. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 03:48, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Good Ventures and Open Philanthropy

Does anyone happen to know: What's the difference between Good Ventures and Open Philanthropy? Did Good Ventures become Open Philanthropy? Does Good Ventures hold the money while Open Philanthropy does the research and gives out the grants? I'm confused. Ruthgrace (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay, think Good Ventures just holds the money and they execute on grants recommended by OpenPhil. According to https://www.goodventures.org/our-portfolio/grantmaking-approach , Good Ventures doesn't have any staff. So I think the Good Ventures article should be a stub at most and the Open Philanthropy one should be a full article. Ruthgrace (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I've completed this work. Would love feedback on the Open Philanthropy article. I'm thinking of submitting it for a Good Article Review. What do you think, Qzekrom, Enervation, maybe others? Ruthgrace (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding the article – it looks pretty great! About the difference between Open Philanthropy and Good Ventures: Open Phil has other funding sources besides Good Ventures (as you've described in the Open Phil article), so I think they should remain distinct articles. Some comments I have:
  • Headings should be sentence case; "Animal welfare", not "Animal Welfare"
  • I think the quote in the intro could be perceived as overly sentimental and WP:POV by reviewers: "Dustin says that their wealth, worth $11 billion, is 'pooled up around us right now, but it belongs to the world. We intend not to have much when we die.'"
  • "Good Ventures holds the funds" – might be misleading since Good Ventures doesn't hold all the funds that Open Philanthropy directs, as there are other donors
  • "Effective Altruism" should be lowercase.
  • You could add article dates to sources, not just the article retrieved date.
  • I suspect the animal welfare section overemphasizes alternative proteins compared to their other funding, like corporate campaigns or wild animal welfare. Animal welfare is listed under U.S. policy, which is bizarre, given that Open Phil's grants to Animal Alliance Asia and the like.
Make sure to check out the good article criteria too. By the way, if you end up expanding the article fivefold, and if you think that you could write an interesting "fun fact" about Open Philanthropy, you could nominate it for WP:DYK. Before your edits, the body text of article (excluding templates, tables, etc.) had 3,078 characters, and now it has 8.920 characters. But if it doesn't make sense to expand the article further, then that's fine. —Enervation (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Effective Altruism tag removed for FTX

Some editors have removed the "Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism" tag on FTX. It seems to me clearly like an organization associated with effective altruism, so I'm a little confused, but it would be good to have some other opinions on the topic. I raised a discussion on Talk:FTX_(company). Jmill1806 (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

There is also a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_8#Category:Organizations_associated_with_effective_altruism for deleting the whole category. Given WP:ASSOCIATEDWITH, I wonder if the category should be renamed "Effective altruism organizations." Jmill1806 (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Project icon

I think we eventually need an icon to uniquely identify this WikiProject; we could use it on our talk page banner and elsewhere. We could use either an existing free image from Wikimedia Commons or create our own.

Currently, the icon on the talk page banner is a plain lightbulb icon. IMO this isn't ideal as a lightbulb on its own doesn't really represent effective altruism. The heartbulb logo represents how EA combines reason (the lightbulb) with compassion (the heart), but unfortunately, we couldn't get the rights to it. I also like the barnstar that Jerm created, but it's a barnstar, so it isn't suitable to represent the whole project.

To me, an icon for this WikiProject would represent effective altruism and Wikipedia, and it shouldn't be a derivative work of any existing EA asset, like the heartbulb logo. It doesn't even have to look like a lightbulb; for example, it could be a stylized image of a person standing in a pond (representing people or the drowning child analogy) with a W or puzzle icon above (representing Wikipedia), and it could be colored teal like the heartbulb logo. Thoughts? Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I just created an icon:
Feel free to edit it as appropriate. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 18:45, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for making this icon, Qzekrom! I like the idea and the colours. Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 09:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
This is beautiful and original, thank you! —Enervation (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
@Qzekrom: I set it ad default image for Template:User WP Effective Altruism. —Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 05:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Work needed on Intermittent preventive therapy

Recently discussed in a GiveWell blog post. Our article about the topic could use expansion and doesn't cite any sources more recent than 2010, but more recent WP:MEDRS-compliant sources seem to be available. It would be great if someone is able to improve this. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 11:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization in Project name

In compliance with the naming conventions on capitalization and the manual of style, the name of this project would better be Effective altruism, with a lowercase A.

Do not capitalize the second or subsequent words in [...] title

— Guidelines

I recommend to fix it. —Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 10:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Is is a proper name? I've definitely seen people talk about "Effective Altruism" before, and it's abbreviated with capital letters ("EA" not "ea"). On the other hand, The Life You Can Save[1], Giving What We Can[2], and our own article on it all put it in lower case, even when referring to "the effective altruism community".
Given that, I'd lean towards putting it in lower case letters. Gbear605 (talk) 18:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Should read over WP:PRJSD before referring to article protocols.Moxy- 01:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
To editor Moxy: WP:PRJSD simply says that "they do not generally need to conform", not that they can't. You're missing the difference between rule and convention. I recommended to change it, that's not an obligation not a rule. As Gbear605 said, EA is often capitalized, but the full name is conventionally uncapitalized. MMA for example is always capitalized, but check the title of WP:MMA. Yes, that's lowercase. There's no need for random capitalization. — Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It seems like a proper name to me. It is not merely altruism that is effective, but a specific set of people and ideas relating to altruism that is effective. Jmill1806 (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, looks like only two of us would like to change it for now. We'll see, Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The Centre for Effective Altruism's stance is that effective altruism is not capitalized.[3] If I were creating this WikiProject, I would have titled it "WikiProject Effective altruism" in keeping with the existing convention for WikiProject page titles. However, the capitalization of our project name is much less important to me than the actual work of this project. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thelifeyoucansave.org/about/effective-altruism/
  2. ^ https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/what-is-effective-altruism/
  3. ^ Comment by Aaron Gertler on EA Forum

Chat group

Is there somewhere to have chats or schedule editing calls? Like a WhatsApp or Signal chat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan PM Young (talk • contribs) 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Nathan PM Young: I'm not aware of a chat group but you're welcome to set one up! —Enervation (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

FTX (company) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for FTX (company) to be moved to FTX. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

New article for What We Owe the Future

I've made a stub article for MacAskill's new book here. Would be grateful for some help in fleshing out the article Throughthemind (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this Throughthemind (talk)! I hope I was able to help out by creating a book summary. Keep up the good work! Ego.Eudaimonia (talk) 13:12, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for expanding the article :) Throughthemind (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Centre for Effective Altruism redirect

Centre for Effective Altruism currently redirects to 80,000 hours. Since it seems the organisation might not meed notability guidelines, there could be potentially a section in the main EA article which it would be better to redirect to. Throughthemind (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Congrats on getting Open Philanthropy to be a Good Article!

@Ruthgrace I just saw that Open Philanthropy is now a Good Article. Congratulations on getting the article to that state! I'm really excited. To everyone who has contributed to the article, thank you for your hard work. —Enervation (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!!! This is an exciting development for this wikiproject and I hope there will be more to come! In particular the Effective Altruism article is up for its 3rd GA review. Hope the 3rd time's the charm! :D Ruthgrace (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Elie Hassenfeld article nominated for deletion

I made an article for Elie Hassenfeld, but it's been nominated for deletion because the sources are about GiveWell, rather than him, so notability hasn't been established (see deletion discussion here). Does anyone have any better sources which could be used for establishing notability? Throughthemind (talk) 18:32, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that there was not more discussion of the nomination before action was taken, but I do think that insofar as Elie Hassenfeld is only known for GiveWell, then they are not sufficiently notable by Wikipedia standards for their own article, right? What else are they known for? Jmill1806 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Centre for Enabling EA Learning & Research - help request.

Hi all, I published Centre for Enabling EA Learning & Research some weeks ago, and quickly got the feedback that I needed to rely more on secondary sources. Now the entire article is nominated for deletion by @Onel5969: with given reason "Can't find enough in-depth coverage to show that this group passes WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH" (Wikilinks added by me.)

I'm obviously invested as the creator, and will do my best to up the standard within the next seven days, but I have a lot on and can't commit. If anyone has time to contribute or advise, it'd be warmly appreciated! DougInAMugtalk 12:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

@Throughthemind pinging you as you showed interest. DougInAMugtalk 12:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
If you think you can find enough in-depth sourcing, but need more time, it can be moved into draftspace for you. Just ping me if you would want to do that. Onel5969 TT me 13:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
@Onel5969 I've had a look around, including a media list on the organization's website, but the only really solid secondary sources I can find are the articles from The Economist, The Times and New Scientist. All three references are currently used in the article. If you think those are not enough (in combination with judicious use of primary sources), then your reason for deletion holds. However, if better use of these sources and general writing would make the difference, I can try DougInAMugtalk 15:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this. It's interesting. Seems to me like The Economist, New Scientist, and The Times are sufficient. At least, it is not uncontroversial as required by WP:PROD. I would vote keep in an WP:AFD. Jmill1806 (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

FTX financial crisis listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for FTX financial crisis to be moved to Collapse of FTX. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 07:35, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

How to handle the FTX scandal?

Some commentators have implicated the effective altruism movement in the FTX scandal. How should we approach covering this? For example, we could add discussions of EA and FTX to the FTX financial crisis article or to the Effective altruism or Longtermism one. However, I would like to be careful not to blow this discourse out of proportion. While I've definitely noticed a lot of people using the FTX scandal as an opportunity to criticize EA, including in published sources, that's probably because I follow discourse about EA a lot. It's been a small fraction of the discourse about the scandal overall, so I don't think it warrants more than a paragraph or two in each article. (For reference, Google searches for "crypto" and "ftx" have dwarfed searches for "effective altruism" in the last 30 days.) Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 07:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've added a section to FTX financial crisis. @Ruthgrace: Please take a look! Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 04:31, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Effective_Altruism/Archive_1&oldid=1191472368"