For anyone working on pages for EA organizations, keep in mind that (1) you probably shouldn’t be an employee of that organization and (2) considerable attention should be included in a criticism section. The ACE page was removed in part because the article was “too positive”, and people like me were prohibited from adding substantive critical content to it because of my affiliation with the organization (per their conflict of interest policy).
I would not recommend relisting ACE in particular without a criticism section that cites criticism from several different sources. See the AfD page for ACE and compare to the AfD for 80k Hours for more details. (Note that the 80k Hours article survived deletion by being much less positive.)
In my experience, Wikipedia is generally trying to move away from the model of having a specific criticism section, and it’s considered better to try to integrate criticism and counterpoints throughout the article.
I don’t think the lack of criticism in particular was the issue; it was more that although the article was a good description of ACE as it existed, there wasn’t enough substantive coverage in notable, third-party sources.
Also, if you have links to possible criticisms you can send them my way, I’ll add them in and evaluate based on that whether it’s worth giving another shot. I did add all the information I could find about ACE when I wrote my first draft of it, but there’s probably much I missed.
For anyone working on pages for EA organizations, keep in mind that (1) you probably shouldn’t be an employee of that organization and (2) considerable attention should be included in a criticism section. The ACE page was removed in part because the article was “too positive”, and people like me were prohibited from adding substantive critical content to it because of my affiliation with the organization (per their conflict of interest policy).
I would not recommend relisting ACE in particular without a criticism section that cites criticism from several different sources. See the AfD page for ACE and compare to the AfD for 80k Hours for more details. (Note that the 80k Hours article survived deletion by being much less positive.)
In my experience, Wikipedia is generally trying to move away from the model of having a specific criticism section, and it’s considered better to try to integrate criticism and counterpoints throughout the article.
I don’t think the lack of criticism in particular was the issue; it was more that although the article was a good description of ACE as it existed, there wasn’t enough substantive coverage in notable, third-party sources.
Also, if you have links to possible criticisms you can send them my way, I’ll add them in and evaluate based on that whether it’s worth giving another shot. I did add all the information I could find about ACE when I wrote my first draft of it, but there’s probably much I missed.