Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Effective Altruism

Effective Altruism Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Effective Altruism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to effective altruism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Effective AltruismWikipedia:WikiProject Effective AltruismTemplate:WikiProject Effective AltruismEffective Altruism articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

• Sendwave - currently redirects to WorldRemit
• Moral cluelessness - currently redirects to Utilitarianism#Predicting consequences

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

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)[reply]

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:

• 80,000 Hours
• Giving What We Can
• Forethought Foundation
• EA Funds

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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