General quibble: Many parts of this post feel like theyāre just about whether editing Wikipedia is better than doing nothing, doing what non-EAs tend to do, or doing something not at all optimised for EA goals, rather than whether editing Wikipedia is better than relatively obvious alternative ways readers of this post could spend their time. E.g.:
Yes, Wikipedia editing may well be better for learning than passive methods like re-reading and highlighting, but the post doesnāt mention that there are also many other things better than passive methods, and doesnāt try to compare Wikipedia against those. E.g. making Anki cards, writing Forum posts summarising the material, doing an online course rather than just reading, participating in a research training program like SERI.
Even if Wikipedia editing histories would be looked on favourably by employers (see my specific quibble for commentary), how does that compare to using the same time on an online course, blog post writing, practicing whatever skills the job requires, running events for a local group, doing forecasting, doing an internship, etc.?
I think it makes sense that this post canāt carefullycompare Wikipedia editing against all such alternatives. And it could be that Wikipedia editing is a āsecond bestā option for many goals and therefore often first best overall, or something. But (at least when listening to the Nonlinear Library podcast version of this) it felt like the post was sometimes saying āWikipedia is good for X, therefore if you want X you should strongly consider editing Wikipediaā, even when I could quickly think of 5 things that might be better for X that werenāt mentioned. And that then feels to me a bit misleading /ā not ideal.
(Again, I liked the post overall and have already shared it with people. This is meant as constructive criticism rather than as a smackdown. I feel like for some reason the tone above is harsher than I really meanānot sure why itās coming out that wayāso apologies if it indeed comes across that way :) )
Thanks for this comment, Michael! I agree with all the points you make and should have been more careful to compare Wikipedia editing against the alternatives (I began doing this in an earlier draft of this post and then cut it because it became unwieldy).
In my experience, few EAs Iāve talked to have ever seriously considered Wikipedia editing. Therefore, my main objective with this post was to get more people to recognize it as one option of something valuable they might do with a part of their time; I wasnāt trying to argue that Wikipedia editing is the best use of their time, which depends a lot on individual circumstances and preferences.
In fact, Iād expect the opportunity costs for many people in the community to be too high to make Wikipedia editing worth their while, but Iād leave that judgment up to them. That said, some people (like me) will find Wikipedia editing sufficiently enjoyable that it becomes more of a fun hobby and doesnāt compete much with other productive uses of their time.
General quibble: Many parts of this post feel like theyāre just about whether editing Wikipedia is better than doing nothing, doing what non-EAs tend to do, or doing something not at all optimised for EA goals, rather than whether editing Wikipedia is better than relatively obvious alternative ways readers of this post could spend their time. E.g.:
Yes, Wikipedia editing may well be better for learning than passive methods like re-reading and highlighting, but the post doesnāt mention that there are also many other things better than passive methods, and doesnāt try to compare Wikipedia against those. E.g. making Anki cards, writing Forum posts summarising the material, doing an online course rather than just reading, participating in a research training program like SERI.
Even if Wikipedia editing histories would be looked on favourably by employers (see my specific quibble for commentary), how does that compare to using the same time on an online course, blog post writing, practicing whatever skills the job requires, running events for a local group, doing forecasting, doing an internship, etc.?
I think it makes sense that this post canāt carefully compare Wikipedia editing against all such alternatives. And it could be that Wikipedia editing is a āsecond bestā option for many goals and therefore often first best overall, or something. But (at least when listening to the Nonlinear Library podcast version of this) it felt like the post was sometimes saying āWikipedia is good for X, therefore if you want X you should strongly consider editing Wikipediaā, even when I could quickly think of 5 things that might be better for X that werenāt mentioned. And that then feels to me a bit misleading /ā not ideal.
(Again, I liked the post overall and have already shared it with people. This is meant as constructive criticism rather than as a smackdown. I feel like for some reason the tone above is harsher than I really meanānot sure why itās coming out that wayāso apologies if it indeed comes across that way :) )
Thanks for this comment, Michael! I agree with all the points you make and should have been more careful to compare Wikipedia editing against the alternatives (I began doing this in an earlier draft of this post and then cut it because it became unwieldy).
In my experience, few EAs Iāve talked to have ever seriously considered Wikipedia editing. Therefore, my main objective with this post was to get more people to recognize it as one option of something valuable they might do with a part of their time; I wasnāt trying to argue that Wikipedia editing is the best use of their time, which depends a lot on individual circumstances and preferences.
In fact, Iād expect the opportunity costs for many people in the community to be too high to make Wikipedia editing worth their while, but Iād leave that judgment up to them. That said, some people (like me) will find Wikipedia editing sufficiently enjoyable that it becomes more of a fun hobby and doesnāt compete much with other productive uses of their time.