Hmm, okay. I appreciate your thoughts—thank you very much for sharing them. I really appreciate it. I’d vastly prefer if other people also weighed in on this because I don’t have any formal expertise on any of these issues, just saw an opportunity to help and took it. I also want to stress that I don’t own the page and you should feel free to jump in and make changes you feel strongly about—that’s the whole point of decentralized control. That being said, some thoughts:
One risk is that of increasing resource proliferation, i.e. that by adding more web pages for some purpose existing ones already fulfill, it will actually make it harder for someone to find either, or deem any of them more “authoritative” than others.
Agreed. I preferred the Wiki page over Google doc alternatives for this reason, because it was an existing page already part of the EA website complex that I could co-opt with reasonable justification. But I concede that the Wikia doesn’t seem to be much used (or at least, I didn’t know about it until very recently despite a lot of internet browsing around EA issues) and so perhaps this could still be considered adding another website to the list. Do you have alternative suggestions for where something like this should be hosted? If the website was sufficiently linked to from other sources (e.g. at the “Read more about EA” section of the EA site), would this solve the problem, or do others remain?
Judging by what happens when you google “effective altruism” the obvious place to keep a “semi-official” reading list/library is somewhere at http://www.effectivealtruism.org/
I think there are merits to easily edited platforms like Wikia (for instance, there is a greater chance this will be revived in the future if/when it is deemed necessary) but please feel free to correct me on this, or argue why the advantages of switching domains outweigh the disadvantages. A small concern: I was hoping that this list would be helpful beyond the mere beginner level (i.e. for people like me), for instance by referencing people to debates about EA topics they wish to learn more about. For that purpose, I’m not sure effectivealtruism.org is actually the logical place to find such a site, because I’m not sure many EAs actually hang out there currently. (Maybe I’m just the outlier? I don’t know.)
divided into the three suggested levels (beginner etc.) so that it is obvious where to jump in.
I have reservations on this particular suggestion. Right now I’ve tried to organize the Library by topic area, and I really want to have sections under each cause area for controversies—would it make sense to supersede this structure by instead organizing by level of difficulty? What I could do instead, for instance, is just organizing by difficulty level within each section—putting Beginners first and Intermediate second. Totally open to more thoughts on this though, because I haven’t thought about it for a long time.
make sure outdated resources (or those that have been superseded by better ones for the same purposes) disappear from the web altogether, or even redirects to the new page once it exists.
I was hoping if/when the library became useful enough to outcompete existing introduction sheets, it would be naturally linked to from the other places EAs generally congregate (this website, maybe in the “Getting Started” section, Reddit, sticky-posted on Facebook, etc.). Before then, it seemed presumptive to suggest such a thing :)
I’ve also been thinking about what to do with the additional reading lists scattered around the web, and I’m neutral on my options. What I’ve done now is linked to the existing lists themselves (in the first section: “EA General Reading Lists”), but I could theoretically also have absorbed the content of those lists—i.e. the actual readings within them—and just given credit to others where credit was due. If the Wikia absorbs and
P.S. By profession I’m a web developer and I’d love to help out with the more technical parts of this project, if that kind of help is needed.
That is very kind of you! I’m going to send you a PM right after I post this.
--
OK, so a brief summary of questions to resolve:
Do we switch domains? (I’m leaning no but I’ve also sunk time into this so I might be biased or blind to the most compelling reasons. This also seems like the most pressing to concern.)
If not, how do we make sure this list is easy to find, if/when it’s better than existing resources? (I agree on a mixture of more links to the page / better SEO—anything else to consider?)
What to do about the other resources, again if this list becomes better than existing ones?
How to structure such a thing—by topic area? by difficulty level? By topic then difficulty, or difficulty then topic?
I think the second best option is to put this on its own website, something like ealibrary.org or such. Then we would have complete freedom in modifying all parts (design, structure, meta data and similar for search engines, social link integration, etc. etc.) and it’s more focused, easier to remember/point to/etc.
I did something similar with http://whatistranshumanism.org/ that is entirely based on the existing transhumanist FAQ that I felt was pure gold content-wise, but hidden deep within the H+ website, poorly laid out, not working at all on mobile, and many other things. This website is now the third result on Google when searching “what is transhumanism”.
The website is hosted on GitHub meaning anyone with an account can suggest edits through pull requests, or make them directly if they have write access. Although decentralization can be a useful principle, I’ve found that having some sort of smaller group of editors makes vetting, structuring, and publishing a smoother process and yields a higher quality end result. Anyone is still free and encouraged to provide materials, of course.
Considering your point of view regarding difficulty-then-topic versus topic-then-difficulty, I think you are right and that your suggested structure is the better one. Topic is probably a more natural way of digging in for visitors of any level. As long as difficulty is clearly communicated (words, color coding, etc.) it will be fairly easy to navigate in the sense at the same time.
Maybe we could make an inventory of existing reading lists that could possibly be considered succeeded by this new one, and once up and running that the maintainers of these can be contacted about the possibility of being merged/redirected to the new website. (Obviously some existing ones should not follow this path and will instead be linked to from this website.) In other words, an inventory of potential “mergers” versus “co-existers”.
These are some of my thoughts on your questions, looking forward to others’ views.
Hmm, okay. I appreciate your thoughts—thank you very much for sharing them. I really appreciate it. I’d vastly prefer if other people also weighed in on this because I don’t have any formal expertise on any of these issues, just saw an opportunity to help and took it. I also want to stress that I don’t own the page and you should feel free to jump in and make changes you feel strongly about—that’s the whole point of decentralized control. That being said, some thoughts:
Agreed. I preferred the Wiki page over Google doc alternatives for this reason, because it was an existing page already part of the EA website complex that I could co-opt with reasonable justification. But I concede that the Wikia doesn’t seem to be much used (or at least, I didn’t know about it until very recently despite a lot of internet browsing around EA issues) and so perhaps this could still be considered adding another website to the list. Do you have alternative suggestions for where something like this should be hosted? If the website was sufficiently linked to from other sources (e.g. at the “Read more about EA” section of the EA site), would this solve the problem, or do others remain?
I think there are merits to easily edited platforms like Wikia (for instance, there is a greater chance this will be revived in the future if/when it is deemed necessary) but please feel free to correct me on this, or argue why the advantages of switching domains outweigh the disadvantages. A small concern: I was hoping that this list would be helpful beyond the mere beginner level (i.e. for people like me), for instance by referencing people to debates about EA topics they wish to learn more about. For that purpose, I’m not sure effectivealtruism.org is actually the logical place to find such a site, because I’m not sure many EAs actually hang out there currently. (Maybe I’m just the outlier? I don’t know.)
I have reservations on this particular suggestion. Right now I’ve tried to organize the Library by topic area, and I really want to have sections under each cause area for controversies—would it make sense to supersede this structure by instead organizing by level of difficulty? What I could do instead, for instance, is just organizing by difficulty level within each section—putting Beginners first and Intermediate second. Totally open to more thoughts on this though, because I haven’t thought about it for a long time.
I was hoping if/when the library became useful enough to outcompete existing introduction sheets, it would be naturally linked to from the other places EAs generally congregate (this website, maybe in the “Getting Started” section, Reddit, sticky-posted on Facebook, etc.). Before then, it seemed presumptive to suggest such a thing :)
I’ve also been thinking about what to do with the additional reading lists scattered around the web, and I’m neutral on my options. What I’ve done now is linked to the existing lists themselves (in the first section: “EA General Reading Lists”), but I could theoretically also have absorbed the content of those lists—i.e. the actual readings within them—and just given credit to others where credit was due. If the Wikia absorbs and
That is very kind of you! I’m going to send you a PM right after I post this.
--
OK, so a brief summary of questions to resolve:
Do we switch domains? (I’m leaning no but I’ve also sunk time into this so I might be biased or blind to the most compelling reasons. This also seems like the most pressing to concern.)
If not, how do we make sure this list is easy to find, if/when it’s better than existing resources? (I agree on a mixture of more links to the page / better SEO—anything else to consider?)
What to do about the other resources, again if this list becomes better than existing ones?
How to structure such a thing—by topic area? by difficulty level? By topic then difficulty, or difficulty then topic?
I think the second best option is to put this on its own website, something like ealibrary.org or such. Then we would have complete freedom in modifying all parts (design, structure, meta data and similar for search engines, social link integration, etc. etc.) and it’s more focused, easier to remember/point to/etc.
I did something similar with http://whatistranshumanism.org/ that is entirely based on the existing transhumanist FAQ that I felt was pure gold content-wise, but hidden deep within the H+ website, poorly laid out, not working at all on mobile, and many other things. This website is now the third result on Google when searching “what is transhumanism”.
The website is hosted on GitHub meaning anyone with an account can suggest edits through pull requests, or make them directly if they have write access. Although decentralization can be a useful principle, I’ve found that having some sort of smaller group of editors makes vetting, structuring, and publishing a smoother process and yields a higher quality end result. Anyone is still free and encouraged to provide materials, of course.
Considering your point of view regarding difficulty-then-topic versus topic-then-difficulty, I think you are right and that your suggested structure is the better one. Topic is probably a more natural way of digging in for visitors of any level. As long as difficulty is clearly communicated (words, color coding, etc.) it will be fairly easy to navigate in the sense at the same time.
Maybe we could make an inventory of existing reading lists that could possibly be considered succeeded by this new one, and once up and running that the maintainers of these can be contacted about the possibility of being merged/redirected to the new website. (Obviously some existing ones should not follow this path and will instead be linked to from this website.) In other words, an inventory of potential “mergers” versus “co-existers”.
These are some of my thoughts on your questions, looking forward to others’ views.