Talk:Centre for Enabling EA Learning & Research

This page was proposed for deletion by Onel5969 (talk · contribs) on 18 October 2022.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Effective Altruism Mid‑importance This article 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Lancashire and Cumbria This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. Organizations Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I stayed at CEEALAR for 4 days, 12-15 September 2022. I paid cost price for my time there (£12/day). I have skimmed through WP:COI and I don't believe I have run afoul of anything. DougInAMugtalk 15:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing! Jmill1806 (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throughthemind thank you for taking an interest in this article and improving it! Among your changes, you added the template saying the article relies too heavily on primary sources. I am motivated to improve the article to the point where the template is no longer required, and would appreciate your guidance. I have skimmed through WP:NOR to better understand the difference between primary, secondary and tertiary sources. Am I correct in saying the centre's own website (including wiki), posts under its Facebook account and posts from any of its residents are all primary sources? Do posts from non-residents in the EA forum count as secondary, or are they too closely related? You're very welcome to add "Citation needed" to any place you think a secondary source is required, or to simply remove any sections you believe unduly rely on primary sources. Cheers in advance, DougInAMugtalk 19:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Those sources you mention will likely fall under WP:RSSELF, so wouldn't be acceptable. WP:SOURCETYPES has a list of sources that would be acceptable. Hope this helps Throughthemind (talk) 09:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The content from CEEALR itself is fine, but the WP:USERGENERATED content in the Reception section isn't encyclopedic, and should go. Imagine what Wikipedia would devolve into if all such internet commentary were included! Jmill1806 (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Throughthemind @Jmill1806 Thanks for the feedback. I have removed the entire Reception section since it rested entirely on references to posts in the EA forum which is clearly against WP:USERGENERATED. I also removed a claim/reference linked to facebook. The references to the CEEALAR 'wiki' are not contrary to WP:USERGENERATED, since it is actually a section of the website - only a wiki in name.

2 references to the EA forum remain, one from "Greg_Colbourn" and one from "CEEALAR". They both contain important information not on the website or in the newspaper articles. However, if these are also no good, I can remove them and re-write as best I can. DougInAMugtalk 18:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a Slate Star Codex article about CEEALAR. Slate Star Codex basically counts as a blog, right? So it would be a secondary source, but self-published... would using it improve or worsen the article? DougInAMugtalk 18:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great question. It is a well-known blog, but as far as I know, it is just one guy posting his thoughts, so there's no editing as common with reliable sources. Really editors often do very little, so this isn't that compelling, but my guess is that SSC would fail to meet the bar if posted on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. All that being said, a sentence merely stating that Scott Alexander wrote about CEEALR on the popular blog Slate Star Codex in 2018, calling it "endearing," seems valuable and encyclopedic to me! Jmill1806 (talk) 08:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls You recently removed the image gallery and the Aims section. On reading WP:IG (for the first time) I see the case is not very strong for keeping the gallery, but I would be happy to get a third opinion about whether, all things considered, its removal is preferable.

As for the removal of the Aims section, your argument seems to be based on the issue of Primary sources. Indeed, 4 of the 5 references for that section were to ceealar.org. As I get more familiar with types of sources and the policies surrounding them, I see that the Aims section as it was was not viable. DougInAMugtalk 16:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]