Concerning the inclusion of links to organizations in the ‘related entries’ section, I feel I don’t have clear enough intuitions that I can codify in an explicit general policy. I suspect we’d usually want to link to organizations only in the ‘related entries’ section of entries about organizations, as you suggest, but I don’t expect this to always be the case. For instance, I added a link to Giving What We Can in the entry on Toby Ord, given Toby’s close connection to that organization. Perhaps a link to GWWC should also be included in Global poverty, though I’m not sure. I suggest we keep an eye on this and note any relevant observations in the appropriate comments thread, so that we can eventually update the Style Guide with a more detailed policy.

Thanks for flagging this. I listed ‘CRS’ under ‘related entries’ in the ‘invertebrate welfare’ entry only because I had previously listed ‘invertebrate welfare’ under the corresponding section of the ‘CRS’ entry. The basis for the latter was that they write this in their ‘about us’ page:

The Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS) is a research center that works to create a future with less suffering, with a focus on reducing the most intense suffering.

We believe suffering matters equally regardless of who experiences it, which implies that we should consider the suffering of all sentient beings in our efforts. This includes wild animals, and possibly also invertebrates or even artificial beings.

I haven’t studied their research closely. If they haven’t done substantive research on invertebrate welfare, the link to that entry should be removed. Moreover, even if the link should be preserved, it’s an open question whether the reciprocal link should exist; ‘entry relatedness’, as used here, doesn’t seem to be a symmetric relation (we are using ‘related’ in the sense of sufficiently intuitively related, and it doesn’t follow that, if x is intuitively related to y to some degree, y is intuitively related to x to that same degree; hence it is not the case that the sufficiency condition is satisfied in one case iff it’s satisfied in the other). To complicate things, I haven’t followed this process for most other orgs, so adding ‘CRS’ under ‘related entries’ in the ‘invertebrate welfare’ entry makes that organization stand out in a way that it wouldn’t if all the other related entries were already listed. In any case, since CRS is not primarily doing research on invertebrate welfare, I think we can already establish that it shouldn’t be listed there; if you think ‘invertebrate welfare’ should also be removed from ‘CRS’, feel free to do so—otherwise I’ll make a decision once I have time to look at their research more closely.

I’ll respond to the rest of your comment later.