I think StackOverflow is is the gold standard for criticism. It’s a question answering website. It allows answers to be ranked and questions and answers to be edited. Not only do the best answers get upvoted, but answers and questions get clearer and higher quality over time. I suggest this should be the aim for GiveWell’s anlyses.
The question was answered by one individual but the edited by a much more experienced user. I think GiveWell could easily allow suggestions to their articles by the communty, which could be upvoted by other readers.
If Givewell doesn’t want to test this, maybe try it on this forum first—allow people to suggest edits to posts.
I think StackOverflow is is the gold standard for criticism. It’s a question answering website. It allows answers to be ranked and questions and answers to be edited. Not only do the best answers get upvoted, but answers and questions get clearer and higher quality over time. I suggest this should be the aim for GiveWell’s anlyses.
See examples of all such features on this question: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/169345/can-a-druid-use-a-sending-stone-while-in-wild-shape
Note:
The question was answered by one individual but the edited by a much more experienced user. I think GiveWell could easily allow suggestions to their articles by the communty, which could be upvoted by other readers.
If Givewell doesn’t want to test this, maybe try it on this forum first—allow people to suggest edits to posts.