Sorry about the downvotes. (My guess is that they were meant to signal disapproval of āabuseā as an adequate subject for a Wiki entry rather than express a negative opinion about the articleās quality; FWIW, I didnāt downvote you.)
I guess I still feel that āphysical abuseā is too vague. Do you have examples of physical abuse in mind that would be of special interest to EA not already covered elsewhere in the Wiki?
I also donāt think itās an expression of the articleās quality, I think EAs (or at least itās forum users) are uncomfortable with abuse. The likes/āupvotes of posts and comments that mention it are often polarized and I think that acknowledging that abused happened in the EA-community probably (and understandably) made people defensive. I wasnāt trying to smear EA by including a Kathy Forth post, I was trying to be open and honest.
I think itās fine to have broad tags that encompass other, more specific tags. My concern about āabuseā isnāt merely that it is broad, but that it doesnāt seem to capture a ānatural kindā of special interest to EA: compare with āglobal health and developmentā, which despite being broad, it singles out a particularly promising focus area (from a neartermist, human-centric perspective).
Things like ādomestic violenceā, āchild abuseā, 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 doesnāt cover, because the EA community hasnāt devoted enough attention to them.
As for abuse within the EA community, perhaps this would warrant a ācommunity healthā entry (which we donāt have at the moment). Would you be in favor of creating such an entry?
Donāt you think physical abuse captures a natural kind? If I start asking people on the street to picture physical abuse and picture global health and development, I think that basically everyone will have a clearer picture of what physical abuse entails than global health and development.
I have just proven myself to be bad at writing about sensitive topics, so you should probably ask someone who speaks English as a native language and who is more integrated in the wider EA-community (there are hardly any EA-organizations/āprojects where I live, so the small group I run is pretty isolated from the larger EA-community). Otherwise the Community experiences /ā Diversity and inclusion /ā Criticism of effective altruist organizations might be enough to cover it.
I saw that some tags now have banners (and icons). Since I made card images and banners for a bunch of sequences, shall I make some for the tags too? I canāt add them via the edit function, so if you want me to add them I would need some other mechanism.
I think the image option is available only for ācoreā tags (which have a white rather than a grey background), although Iām not entirely sure since this was done by the tech team. I believe all the core tags already have images associated with them, but if that isnāt the case, or if you think you can produce better images, it may be worth exploring this further. Would you mind messaging JP Addison, who is leading this? Thanks.
I created a poll to decide what to do about the āAbuseā article and it looks like people are not in favor of keeping it. Just wanted to let you know that Iāll probably delete it if the vote doesnāt substantially change by the end of today.
Thanks again for contributing to the EA Wiki, and I hope this doesnāt dissuade you from contributing more in the future!
I donāt appreciate the sarcasm. Lots of tags have been deleted in the past. This was the first tag deleted after trying out a democratic process of decision-making, that doesnāt rely on my judgment alone.
The conversation had ended with my argument. No one had refuted it, no one provided a counterargument, no one left a request for the deletion of the tag. Itās also not democratic if some people get more votes than others. If there was any need for a poll at all, it would be about whether the name should be changed to āphysical abuseā. Should I just upload the same article but under the name āphysical abuseā (but this time without mentioning the EA-community and without adding a post by Kathy Forth)?
If you want to nominate an article, you can do so here.
EDIT: Pabloās response is fair so I will upvote it, I didnāt think of it because most of it was already released and none contained personal info, but I should have asked. I do think the context is important since Pabloās comment is misleading, the objections were addressed and the deletion process started without request. The fact that my tag proposal stood a day without getting downvoted, but did get a downvote immediately after this comment mentioned the EA-community and Kathy Forth again, is evidence that these factors were indeed what caused the downvote of the original tag. I do think some of the posts I linked in the proposal worked better than others, which is why I used the word āpotentiallyā. Currently 48 tags have only 1 article and 55 tags only have 2 articles. I feared that if I only linked a few the tag would be dismissed with the response that the EA-community doesnāt engage with this topic (which is demonstrably not true). Feel free to not include the articles you think are irrelevant, but there are definitely more than two that remain.
While Iām happy for our exchange to be made public, I note that you didnāt ask for permission to post it. In general, I think you should get peopleās consent before releasing a private communication (as I did before sharing our initial exchange).
I read this exchange a few times, but Iām 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 āabuseā is vague. āAbuseā pretty much boils down to āmalign behavior by human beingsā, which is incredibly broad and hard to define.
Pablo talks about it here:
I think itās fine to have broad tags that encompass other, more specific tags. My concern about āabuseā isnāt merely that it is broad, but that it doesnāt seem to capture a ānatural kindā of special interest to EA: compare with āglobal health and developmentā, which despite being broad, it singles out a particularly promising focus area (from a neartermist, human-centric perspective).
Things like ādomestic violenceā, āchild abuseā, 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 doesnāt cover, because the EA community hasnāt devoted enough attention to them.
As for abuse within the EA community, perhaps this would warrant a ācommunity healthā entry (which we donāt have at the moment). Would you be in favor of creating such an entry?
To sum up, the lack of clarity about what āabuseā means, and that itās 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 ācriticism of EAā 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, itās really hard and unrewarding for āoutsidersā 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 āabuseā tags needs to slot in.
My ideology is that this benefits from a āsingle vision or ownerā and Pabloās role and views overall seem correct?
For context, here is the discussion:
EDIT: Pabloās response is fair so I will upvote it, I didnāt think of it because most of it was already released and none contained personal info, but I should have asked. I do think the context is important since Pabloās comment is misleading, the objections were addressed and the deletion process started without request. The fact that my tag proposal stood a day without getting downvoted, but did get a downvote immediately after this comment mentioned the EA-community and Kathy Forth again, is evidence that these factors were indeed what caused the downvote of the original tag. I do think some of the posts I linked in the proposal worked better than others, which is why I used the word āpotentiallyā. Currently 48 tags have only 1 article and 55 tags only have 2 articles. I feared that if I only linked a few the tag would be dismissed with the response that the EA-community doesnāt engage with this topic (which is demonstrably not true). Feel free to not include the articles you think are irrelevant, but there are definitely more than two that remain.
While Iām happy for our exchange to be made public, I note that you didnāt ask for permission to post it. In general, I think you should get peopleās consent before releasing a private communication (as I did before sharing our initial exchange).
I read this exchange a few times, but Iām 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 āabuseā is vague. āAbuseā pretty much boils down to āmalign behavior by human beingsā, which is incredibly broad and hard to define.
Pablo talks about it here:
To sum up, the lack of clarity about what āabuseā means, and that itās 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 ācriticism of EAā 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, itās really hard and unrewarding for āoutsidersā 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 āabuseā tags needs to slot in.
My ideology is that this benefits from a āsingle vision or ownerā and Pabloās role and views overall seem correct?