Hi Nathan! If a field includes an EA-relevant concept which could benefit from an explanation in EA language, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t just include an entry for that particular concept.
For concepts which are less directly EA-relevant, the marginal value of including entries for them in the wiki (when they’re already searchable on Wikipedia) is less clear to me. On the contrary, it could plausibly promote the perception that there’s an “authoritative EA interpretation/opinion” of an unrelated field, which could cause needless controversy or division.
Hi Nathan! If a field includes an EA-relevant concept which could benefit from an explanation in EA language, then I don’t see why we shouldn’t just include an entry for that particular concept.
For concepts which are less directly EA-relevant, the marginal value of including entries for them in the wiki (when they’re already searchable on Wikipedia) is less clear to me. On the contrary, it could plausibly promote the perception that there’s an “authoritative EA interpretation/opinion” of an unrelated field, which could cause needless controversy or division.