I read this exchange a few times, but I’m still a novice to this exchange or the headspace of this argument, and my understanding is limited. I feel like that relatively few people will engage or give comment, so I am commenting.
My quick read is that Pablo has a substantive viewpoint, that “abuse” is vague. “Abuse” pretty much boils down to “malign behavior by human beings”, which is incredibly broad and hard to define.
Pablo talks about it here:
I think it’s fine to have broad tags that encompass other, more specific tags. My concern about “abuse” isn’t merely that it is broad, but that it doesn’t seem to capture a “natural kind” of special interest to EA: compare with “global health and development”, which despite being broad, it singles out a particularly promising focus area (from a neartermist, human-centric perspective).
Things like “domestic violence”, “child abuse”, etc. are in principle appropriate candidates for a Wiki entry, I think, though whether they are in practice depends on whether these are topics that have attracted sufficient EA attention. There are all sorts of serious issues in the world that the Wiki doesn’t cover, because the EA community hasn’t devoted enough attention to them.
As for abuse within the EA community, perhaps this would warrant a “community health” entry (which we don’t have at the moment). Would you be in favor of creating such an entry?
To sum up, the lack of clarity about what “abuse” means, and that it’s purportedly a general class of interventions to help the world, yet somehow also going to absorb community health (which would just help EAs) or criticism of EA, seems dubious.
Your immediate comment to the above comment is friendly, but goes sort of off topic and is hard to follow or engage with. At some point, you throw in “criticism of EA” into this for unclear reasons, and then you post up this comment exchange, which to quick pattern matching, seems to look really unpromising.
In these arguments or situations, it’s really hard and unrewarding for “outsiders” to the argument to get into the headspace and gain understanding or be productive in these disputes.
The substance here is about a system of knowledge or a wiki, a vision or system for which the would-be “abuse” tags needs to slot in.
My ideology is that this benefits from a “single vision or owner” and Pablo’s role and views overall seem correct?
I read this exchange a few times, but I’m still a novice to this exchange or the headspace of this argument, and my understanding is limited. I feel like that relatively few people will engage or give comment, so I am commenting.
My quick read is that Pablo has a substantive viewpoint, that “abuse” is vague. “Abuse” pretty much boils down to “malign behavior by human beings”, which is incredibly broad and hard to define.
Pablo talks about it here:
To sum up, the lack of clarity about what “abuse” means, and that it’s purportedly a general class of interventions to help the world, yet somehow also going to absorb community health (which would just help EAs) or criticism of EA, seems dubious.
Your immediate comment to the above comment is friendly, but goes sort of off topic and is hard to follow or engage with. At some point, you throw in “criticism of EA” into this for unclear reasons, and then you post up this comment exchange, which to quick pattern matching, seems to look really unpromising.
In these arguments or situations, it’s really hard and unrewarding for “outsiders” to the argument to get into the headspace and gain understanding or be productive in these disputes.
The substance here is about a system of knowledge or a wiki, a vision or system for which the would-be “abuse” tags needs to slot in.
My ideology is that this benefits from a “single vision or owner” and Pablo’s role and views overall seem correct?