Iām roughly neutral on this, since I donāt have a very clear sense of what the criteria and ābarsā are for deciding whether to make an entry about a given person. I think it would be good to have a discussion/āpolicy regarding that.
I think some people like Nick Bostrom and Will MacAskill clearly warrant and entry, and some people like me clearly donāt, and thereās a big space in betweenāwith Pearce included in itāwhere I could be convinced either way. (This has to do with relevance and notability in the context of the EA Forum Wiki, not like an overall judgement of these people or a popularity contest.)
Some other people who are perhaps in that ambiguous space:
Nick Beckstead (no entry atm)
Elie Hassenfeld (no entry atm, but an entry for GiveWell)
Max Tegmark (no entry atm, but an entry for FLI)
Brian Tomasik (has an entry)
Stuart Russell (has an entry)
Hilary Greaves (has an entry)
(I think Iād lean towards each of them having an entry except Hassenfeld and maybe Tegmark. I think the reason for The Hassenfeld Exception is that, as far as Iām aware, the vast majority of his work has been very connected with GiveWell. So itās very important and notable, but doesnāt need a distinct entry. Somewhat similar with Tegmark inasmuch as he relates to EA, though heās of course notable in the physics community for non-FLI-related reasons. But Iām very tentative with all those views.)
ā¦ I think the reason for The Hassenfeld Exception is that, as far as Iām aware, the vast majority of his work has been very connected with GiveWell. So itās very important and notable, but doesnāt need a distinct entry. Somewhat similar with Tegmark inasmuch as he relates to EA, though heās of course notable in the physics community for non-FLI-related reasons. ā¦
This makes sense to me, although one who is more familiar w/ā their work may find their exclusion unwarranted. Thanks for clarifying!
In this light I still think an entry for Pearce is justified, to a degree scientifically grounded proposals for abolishing suffering is an EA topic (and this is the main theme of Pearceās work). But Iām just one input of course.
Regarding Tomasik, we have different intuitions here: if an entry for Tomasik may not be justified, then I would say this sets a high bar which only original EA founders could reach. (For Tomasik himself is a founder of an EA charityāthe Foundational Research Institute /ā Center on Long-Term Riskāhas written extensively on many topics highly relevant to EA, and an advisor at the Center for Reducing Suffering, another EA org.) Anyway, this difference doesnāt probably matter in practice since you added that you lean towards Tomasikās having an entry.
I agree with you that a Tomasik entry is clearly warranted. I would say that his entry is as justified as one on Ord or MacAskill; he is one of half a dozen or so people who have made the most important contributions to EA, in my opinion.
I will respond to your main comment later, or tomorrow.
As noted, I do lean towards Tomasik having an entry, but āco-founder of an EA orgā + āwritten extensively on many topics highly relevant to EAā + āis an advisor for another EA orgā, or 1 or 2 of those things plus 1 or 2 similar things, includes a fair few people, including probably like 5 people I know personally and who probably shouldnāt have their own entries.
I do think Tomasik has been especially prolific and his writings especially well-regarded and influential, which is a big part of why I lean towards an entry for him, but the criteria and cut offs do seem fuzzy at this stage.
Iām roughly neutral on this, since I donāt have a very clear sense of what the criteria and ābarsā are for deciding whether to make an entry about a given person. I think it would be good to have a discussion/āpolicy regarding that.
I think some people like Nick Bostrom and Will MacAskill clearly warrant and entry, and some people like me clearly donāt, and thereās a big space in betweenāwith Pearce included in itāwhere I could be convinced either way. (This has to do with relevance and notability in the context of the EA Forum Wiki, not like an overall judgement of these people or a popularity contest.)
Some other people who are perhaps in that ambiguous space:
Nick Beckstead (no entry atm)
Elie Hassenfeld (no entry atm, but an entry for GiveWell)
Max Tegmark (no entry atm, but an entry for FLI)
Brian Tomasik (has an entry)
Stuart Russell (has an entry)
Hilary Greaves (has an entry)
(I think Iād lean towards each of them having an entry except Hassenfeld and maybe Tegmark. I think the reason for The Hassenfeld Exception is that, as far as Iām aware, the vast majority of his work has been very connected with GiveWell. So itās very important and notable, but doesnāt need a distinct entry. Somewhat similar with Tegmark inasmuch as he relates to EA, though heās of course notable in the physics community for non-FLI-related reasons. But Iām very tentative with all those views.)
This makes sense to me, although one who is more familiar w/ā their work may find their exclusion unwarranted. Thanks for clarifying!
In this light I still think an entry for Pearce is justified, to a degree scientifically grounded proposals for abolishing suffering is an EA topic (and this is the main theme of Pearceās work). But Iām just one input of course.
Regarding Tomasik, we have different intuitions here: if an entry for Tomasik may not be justified, then I would say this sets a high bar which only original EA founders could reach. (For Tomasik himself is a founder of an EA charityāthe Foundational Research Institute /ā Center on Long-Term Riskāhas written extensively on many topics highly relevant to EA, and an advisor at the Center for Reducing Suffering, another EA org.) Anyway, this difference doesnāt probably matter in practice since you added that you lean towards Tomasikās having an entry.
I agree with you that a Tomasik entry is clearly warranted. I would say that his entry is as justified as one on Ord or MacAskill; he is one of half a dozen or so people who have made the most important contributions to EA, in my opinion.
I will respond to your main comment later, or tomorrow.
As noted, I do lean towards Tomasik having an entry, but āco-founder of an EA orgā + āwritten extensively on many topics highly relevant to EAā + āis an advisor for another EA orgā, or 1 or 2 of those things plus 1 or 2 similar things, includes a fair few people, including probably like 5 people I know personally and who probably shouldnāt have their own entries.
I do think Tomasik has been especially prolific and his writings especially well-regarded and influential, which is a big part of why I lean towards an entry for him, but the criteria and cut offs do seem fuzzy at this stage.