[Low confidence ā Iām hashing out my own opinion in public, not trying to apply admin pressure]
I like the tags youāve listed there. If youād asked me to think about concepts in EA and written a (long) list, Iād hope I would have found those. I feel like Political Polarization is maybe more niche than I would do? Thereās a key difference between us and LW here, which is that LW is investing a large amount of time into creating a whole ontology out of their tagging system, and organizing thing hierarchically, which allows the highlighting of broader tags, while we canāt match them in hours devoted if Aaron and I both worked on it full time.
What Iāve just done is add a tag for most of the shortform collections Iād made that didnāt have a tag already. (With a few exceptions where the shortform collection was decently covered by an existing tag, or was really a fairly fuzzy or niche category.)
For some of these, including political polarisation, there arenāt many relevant Forum posts Iām aware of. But I felt like maybe that wasnāt a big issue, because more posts on the topics might still be created or found later?
And then thereās also the issue that some topics might be better off subsumed under something else. That might apply to Political Polarisation (though Iām not sure what itād be subsumed under?) and to Differential Progress (under Existential Risk or Longtermism (philosophy) or something).
For that reason I didnāt (yet?) make Global Catastrophic Risks; thatās clearly a non-niche topic, but is maybe covered by the Existential Risk tag (even if the concepts are meaningfully distinct). And itās why I havenāt (yet?) made Meta-Ethics (as it could fit under Moral Philosophy).
Could admins hide or delete tags that they deem overly niche? Iād feel positive about that option being on the table, so people can feel more comfortable about creating tags that might not be worthwhile (which in turn seems good, because many of those tags will indeed be worthwhile). If admins plan to be extremely reluctant to do that, then maybe itād be good to promote a more cautious norm around tag-creation?
I wish there was a community-led way of deciding about tags. I think LW is making the calls about their tag-classification that theyāve introduced. (See image.) So maybe it makes sense for us to be more opinionated.
The History tag is for posts that are strongly focused on historical events or trends which donāt necessarily connect to other tags (e.g., a post on the history of nuclear weapons should go in that tag instead), or that discuss or make heavy use of historical research methods.
Either way seems ok to me. My thinking was that, if overlap was allowed, a large portion of all posts could be seen as āHistoryā posts. But maybe thatās inaccurate or ok. You and other people can feel free to edit any descriptions on tags I made :)
Meta: This discussion makes me realise itās possible itād be valuable to have some equivalent of Wikipediaās ātalkā pages for tags. (But maybe thatād take more work than itās worth.)
ETA: I now think youāre right about the History tag, and have adjusted the description accordingly.
[Low confidence ā Iām hashing out my own opinion in public, not trying to apply admin pressure]
I like the tags youāve listed there. If youād asked me to think about concepts in EA and written a (long) list, Iād hope I would have found those. I feel like Political Polarization is maybe more niche than I would do? Thereās a key difference between us and LW here, which is that LW is investing a large amount of time into creating a whole ontology out of their tagging system, and organizing thing hierarchically, which allows the highlighting of broader tags, while we canāt match them in hours devoted if Aaron and I both worked on it full time.
Thanks for that input.
(Also sort-of thinking aloud)
What Iāve just done is add a tag for most of the shortform collections Iād made that didnāt have a tag already. (With a few exceptions where the shortform collection was decently covered by an existing tag, or was really a fairly fuzzy or niche category.)
For some of these, including political polarisation, there arenāt many relevant Forum posts Iām aware of. But I felt like maybe that wasnāt a big issue, because more posts on the topics might still be created or found later?
And then thereās also the issue that some topics might be better off subsumed under something else. That might apply to Political Polarisation (though Iām not sure what itād be subsumed under?) and to Differential Progress (under Existential Risk or Longtermism (philosophy) or something).
For that reason I didnāt (yet?) make Global Catastrophic Risks; thatās clearly a non-niche topic, but is maybe covered by the Existential Risk tag (even if the concepts are meaningfully distinct). And itās why I havenāt (yet?) made Meta-Ethics (as it could fit under Moral Philosophy).
Could admins hide or delete tags that they deem overly niche? Iād feel positive about that option being on the table, so people can feel more comfortable about creating tags that might not be worthwhile (which in turn seems good, because many of those tags will indeed be worthwhile). If admins plan to be extremely reluctant to do that, then maybe itād be good to promote a more cautious norm around tag-creation?
I wish there was a community-led way of deciding about tags. I think LW is making the calls about their tag-classification that theyāve introduced. (See image.) So maybe it makes sense for us to be more opinionated.
Iāve now created the post Propose and vote on potential tags, which I hope can serve as a place to collect and sift through a bunch of ideas.
I feel like itās fine for them to overlap.
Either way seems ok to me. My thinking was that, if overlap was allowed, a large portion of all posts could be seen as āHistoryā posts. But maybe thatās inaccurate or ok. You and other people can feel free to edit any descriptions on tags I made :)
Meta: This discussion makes me realise itās possible itād be valuable to have some equivalent of Wikipediaās ātalkā pages for tags. (But maybe thatād take more work than itās worth.)
ETA: I now think youāre right about the History tag, and have adjusted the description accordingly.
I expect thatās on LWās roadmap.
Narrator: āHe was right.ā