Effective Altruism Forum
EA Forum

Hide table of contents
Comment Permalink
VPetukhov1
0
0

I'm wondering if we can address the problem with the same framework as for having better list of concrete projects? Let's say, we have a list of articles suggested for contribution, like this one, but maybe with some additional info on prioritization. A person picks the article the same way as a project and mark it somehow as "Taken" and then "Done". So we can trace their contribution based on this selection process and assign status points correspondingly. So, essentially, "Writing article" is just a possible type of a project, and the rest workflows are the same. Which suggests that we need to think more about project-based contribution. Perhaps it worth referencing Effective Thesis here as a similar initiative.

And having something slack for wikipedia contributors doesn't seem like a problem at all.

Alternative approach could be adopting MediaWiki and integrating it with existing user rating system. I don't know how backend for EA Forum is organized, but something like OpenID could be a relatively painless solution.

Reply
See in context
by VPetukhov
1 min readNo answers 26

32

CommunityBuilding effective altruismCommunity infrastructureWikis
Frontpage

TLDR: is there any reason EA community doesn't actively use wiki approach? Or do I miss something and it does?

Problem

Searching for "effective altruism wiki" I mostly meet broken links. Several years ago the announcement was posted that wiki moves to EA Hub. None of the three links posted there works, but EA Hub has Priority Wiki. However Priority Wiki is focused only on cause prioritization and is almost empty know. So I'm wondering, what happened to the old EA Wiki? Were there any reasons for closing it? What happened to the knowledge published there? And, more broadly, why creating a common knowledge base is almost (see below) never mentioned as an impactful contribution?(see below)

Motivation

During the last half year I was talking a lot with people exploring different EA options (like me), and each of them performed some EA-related research and shared some valuable information with me. So I'm surprised why such kind of knowledge isn't gathered together. Even gathering information about all organizations related to some topic is troubling: there are lots of them with different quality and roles. Definitely, 80k does great job collecting it in the problem profiles. But wouldn't it be more efficient (and effective) to outsource this task to the community? Another example: just today I met two old EA lists (1, 2), which would be nice to have updated and open for contribution.

Indeed, I've found that several years ago Vipul Naik was contributing actively to EA-related articles on wikipedia. And according to his page, he switched to timelines, which are mostly focused on EA. Moreover, Foundational Research Institute also proposes contributing to wikipedia as one of the volunteering activities.

But with all my respect to wikipedia, I think that having a local wiki would allow to focus on more action-related topics instead of some general knowledge. And it would greatly simplify searching for such information and increase chances that the content you write will be read by people with similar goals.

32

0
0

Reactions

0
0
Mentioned in
New Answer
New Comment


Comments26
Sorted by
New & upvoted
Click to highlight new comments since:
EdoArad22
0
0

Some thoughts:

In summary, the empirical results paint a somewhat different picture of sustained contribution than originally hypothesized. Specifically, sustained contributors appear to be motivated by a perception that the project needs their contributions (H1); by abilities other than domain expertise (H2); by personal rather than social motives (H3 & 4); and by intrinsic enjoyment of the process of contributing (H7) rather than extrinsic factors such as learning (H6). In contrast, meta-contributors seem to be motivated by social factors (H3 & 4), as well as by intrinsic enjoyment (H7).

  • I think that we should strategically plan how to incentivize possible contributors. Ideally, people should contribute based on what would be the most valuable, which is something that may be achievable through prizes (possibly "Karma" or money, but perhaps better is something like certificates of impact), bounties, peer support and acknowledgment, and requests and recognition from leaders of the community.
  • I think that it would take a big effort to bootstrap something new. The efforts going into EA Hub seems to me like a good place to start a centralized knowledge base.
  • I'd like something like a top/bottom research agenda on "how to do the most good", that ends with concrete problems ([like these])(https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/2zcBy7eDXjEti9Sw7/a-collection-of-researchy-projects-for-aspiring-eas). Something that can help us be more strategic in our resource allocation, and through which we can more easily focus experts on where they can help the most (and have a good infrastructure for moral trade).
  • It seems that something like Roam could be great, because it is designed to make it easy to create pages and has backlinks to support exploration and has other neat stuff. It is still not mature enough though.
Reply
Vaidehi Agarwalla 🔸8
0
0

I think collectiven intelligence could be a really promising task Y if the basic structure is designed properly. I'd guess the biggest bottleneck here is funding to build the infrastructure.

In contrast, meta-contributors seem to be motivated by social factors (H3 & 4), as well as by intrinsic enjoyment (H7).

The differences between meta-contributors and contributors is probably really important to understand, and may have implications for a lot of different volunteer projects - one failure mode could be if meta-contributors setting up a project and then failing to find the right people to contribute (i.e. finding people like themselves who are motivated by social rather than personal factors)

Thanks for the research links, and the summary!

Reply
EdoArad3
0
0

I'm surprised that you think that the bottleneck is in funding, I guess that means that I overestimate the easiness and desirability of using some existing tools.
Interested in your take on it :)

Reply
Vaidehi Agarwalla 🔸1
0
0

Perhaps that is misleading - let me rephrase - if the solution really requires creating a new infrastructure then I'd say funding would be a bottle neck (not that funds don't exist, but they aren't always easy to get), but getting the right people to build the infrastructure would probably be a bottleneck too.

What existing tools were you thinking of?

Reply
EdoArad3
0
0

I actually did not give that enough thought. I think using MediaWiki or Wikidot might be fine for start, and I am very fond of Roam. Notion might be great here as well. All of them require getting used to because the syntax is not straightforward, but that suffices for textual edits if there are people who go over and fix design problems. Roam is more difficult because it is... different.. and because it is less mature. Roam being in it's starting phases might actually be a good thing, because it's development can probably shift to the needs of the EA community in this case if the EA Wiki will be hosted there (Roam Research received a grant from the Long Term Future Fund)

That is all to say that I think a basic wiki infrastructure might be fine for start, if there is a good roadmap and support from the community. I assume that markets and fancy prizes can wait for later or be hacked into existence, but maybe that should be in the design from the start 🤷‍♂️

Reply
VPetukhov2
0
0
This post on how to find EA documents, the forum pingbacka and asking questions on the forum are some examples of ways to find information.

That's very useful, thanks! Pingbacks especially.

There is research on what gets people motivated to write in wikipedia. Here is a recent study that found some interesting stuff, and they conclude with

Wow, so we even have some theory on that. And motivation from the paper looks aligned with EA values.

I think that we should strategically plan how to incentivize possible contributors. Ideally, people should contribute based on what would be the most valuable, which is something that may be achievable through prizes

Completely agree. And also really appreciate your science-based approach. We definitely should discuss it if more of us agree that some platform for open contributions is needed.

I think that it would take a big effort to bootstrap something new. The efforts going into EA Hub seems to me like a good place to start a centralized knowledge base.

+1

I'd like something like a top/bottom research agenda on "how to do the most good", that ends with concrete problems

Yep! We also have such list in EA Denmark though ours is much simpler. And indeed, it was one of the things that pushed me to ask this question.

It seems that something like Roam could be great, because it is designed to make it easy to create pages and has backlinks to support exploration and has other neat stuff. It is still not mature enough though.

I was thinking a lot about GitHub-like structures. It's too complicated for general knowledge, but designed pretty well for more complex domains. For example, if a group works on something like OpenPhil Cause Reports, where producing each piece of information takes long time, and also work of the beginners must be validated by more experienced users. In such cases system of branches allows splitting publishing-ready information from work in progress, issues allow to contribute for those who isn't skilled enough to create product, but has enough experience to note a problem. And so on. But that's just one of possibilities.

This can be possibly implemented adequately on the forum (but requires better search, better norm for writing information, and a better norm of referencing to other materials, perhaps in the comments).

Not sure about that. Different kind of information requires different types of knowledge bases. And here as an example we can take forums, StackOverflow and wikipedia. As far as I understand, if you want to share information about a topic, where some consensus can be found over time and once found is not expected to be changed quickly, then you want wiki. So, someone writes an article with main ideas about the topic and others polish it up (which is kind of impossible on forums). Another situation is if your domain changes too quickly (such as programming languages). Then there is no reason in having overhead for having nicely written articles about every aspect of it. At maximum you'll need to have some blog posts. And the third popular case is asking for personal opinion: it can be either some tips and hacks (StackOverflow has plenty) or just discussion of some ideas like we do know. And this is impossible on wiki.

My impression is that in EA community we lack well-organized up-to-date information, which would represent some kind of consensus instead of a bunch of personal opinions. Your list "how to do the most good" is one example of a thing, which can't be implemented on forum. For such lists, suggestions to EA Hub resources, which @cafelow mentioned would solve the problem. But in general I wouldn't expect them being as effective as wiki.

And this is an interesting experiment in a mechanism designed to improve incentives for collective knowledge production.

Hah, if you have problems with incentives, just add some markets! :)

Reply
EdoArad2
0
0

Re Github-like structures, I think that Google Docs can be sufficient for most cases. Instead of branches, you have non-published docs. And using a wiki page instead of issues might be fine.

I agree with your analysis of knowledge bases, thanks for clarifying that! I take back the suggestion of doubling down on the forum mostly because it seems difficult to properly keep the information updated and to have a clear consensus.

Reply
EdoArad2
0
0

  • Also, I found that I tend to access Wikipedia mostly as a search result, and sometimes go deeper if there are inner links that interest me. This means that we only need the information to be accessible by search, and to be good at referencing further material. This can be possibly implemented adequately on the forum (but requires better search, better norm for writing information, and a better norm of referencing to other materials, perhaps in the comments).

  • And this is an interesting experiment in a mechanism designed to improve incentives for collective knowledge production.

Reply
Vaidehi Agarwalla 🔸1
0
0

(accidentally commented twice)

Reply
saulius14
0
0

Similarly to EdoArad, I am afraid that without some incentive/gamification structure, there would be a lack of motivation for users to edit an EA wiki. I haven’t read any science on motivations but I want to share my personal point of view. Personally, I don’t feel very motivated to edit the priority wiki because:

  • I will probably receive no comments or feedback on what I wrote
  • I don’t know who and when will read whatever I write there
  • Even if someone reads it, it’s unlikely that they will notice that it was me who wrote it. That means that writing there won’t improve my career prospects or social status.[1] No one will come to me at the EAG or something to talk about this thing that I wrote.

Note that none of these problems apply to the EA forum which is why it feels much more motivating to write here.

I used to edit Lithuanian Wikipedia and these things didn’t apply there either because:

  • I knew that many people were reading pages I was editing. It was very useful and motivating to check pageview statistics.
  • There was a community, editing wikipedia felt like a collaborative project because:
    • There were often discussions on talk pages and a skype channel
    • I knew that admins and some other users on the Lithuanian wikipedia are looking at the recent changes page (which is much less eventful for smaller wikis) and that my new contributions will not go unnoticed. It was irrational for me to try to impress these people whom I have never met in real life but the human brain is wired to care about this kind of stuff (or at least my brain).
    • People would give other people “awards” which were just pieces of html that you could put on your user page. E.g. see awards for this random wikipedia user. Receiving such awards made me feel like my effort was appreciated.
    • We also had an “article of the week” which was a new article written that week that would be featured on the frontpage. I often tried to get my article featured and then it would get a lot of views. It’s almost like gamifying contributions
    • Best articles on wikipedia are marked as featured or good. It was motivating to try to get my articles one of these statuses.

I’m not sure if I’m suggesting to have any of these motivation structures for an EA wiki though. It would probably not reach the critical mass where doing some of this stuff would start making sense. If it did reach the critical mass, I’d be afraid to put too many of these motivation structures in place. We don’t want EAs are spending too much time editing an EA wiki instead of doing more direct things to help the world. But maybe there is some middle ground here.

    1. It’s probably obvious but I feel like I should clarify here that I’m not saying that I contribute to the EA forum only to get social status, etc. I do want to make an impact. But it’s difficult to motivate myself every day just by the thought that what I do might make an impact. Hence it’s good to put myself in situations where I care to do the same things that make an impact for other reasons. It’s like going to an exercise class because you know that you will be ashamed to not do exercise there when everyone around you is doing it. It’s not like you do exercise to impress those strangers, you do it to get fit, but it’s difficult to motivate yourself by the thought of getting fit alone. ↩︎
Reply
VPetukhov1
0
0

I'm wondering if we can address the problem with the same framework as for having better list of concrete projects? Let's say, we have a list of articles suggested for contribution, like this one, but maybe with some additional info on prioritization. A person picks the article the same way as a project and mark it somehow as "Taken" and then "Done". So we can trace their contribution based on this selection process and assign status points correspondingly. So, essentially, "Writing article" is just a possible type of a project, and the rest workflows are the same. Which suggests that we need to think more about project-based contribution. Perhaps it worth referencing Effective Thesis here as a similar initiative.

And having something slack for wikipedia contributors doesn't seem like a problem at all.

Alternative approach could be adopting MediaWiki and integrating it with existing user rating system. I don't know how backend for EA Forum is organized, but something like OpenID could be a relatively painless solution.

Reply
Catherine Low🔸9
0
0

Re: The old wiki on the EA Hub, I'm afraid the old wiki data got corrupted, it wasn't backed up properly and it was deemed too difficult to restore at the time :(. So it looks like the information in that wiki is now lost to the winds. I'm very sorry about that.

This may or may not fulfil your needs (and isn't _quite_ a wiki), but the EA Hub resources (resources.eahub.org), is a repository for EA links, and we hope to grow the number of resources available. We will soon have a way for people to make suggestions for changes and additions. which will be vetted before loading onto the website.


Reply
riceissa7
0
0

Re: The old wiki on the EA Hub, I'm afraid the old wiki data got corrupted, it wasn't backed up properly and it was deemed too difficult to restore at the time :(. So it looks like the information in that wiki is now lost to the winds.

I think a dump of the wiki is available at https://archive.org/details/wiki-wikieahuborg_w.

Reply
VPetukhov1
0
0

Unfortunately, no. The archive there contains only the html with the main page and some logos...

Reply
JimmyJ13
0
0

Hi, as the person who personally generated the wiki dump, I can assure you that the complete content of every edit revision of every article was saved, and the data is saved in an XML format that can be trivially imported into MediaWiki. Additionally, I grabbed it after site activity had already died down, but before the wiki got taken over by spambots, so the dump should be in pretty much perfect condition.

Reply
VPetukhov1
0
0

Oh, sorry, didn't figure it out. Thanks for clarification!

Do you by chance know why the old wiki died?

Reply
riceissa7
0
0

wikieahuborg_w-20180412-history.xml contains the dump, which can be imported to a MediaWiki instance.

Reply
saulius6
0
0

Do you know approximately how many monthly visitors the old wiki had?

Reply
VPetukhov2
0
0

Thanks for the answer!

the information in that wiki is now lost to the wind

Woh, that's sad. Some thing for us to keep in mind for the future...

This may or may not fulfil your needs (and isn't _quite_ a wiki), but the EA Hub resources (resources.eahub.org), is a repository for EA links, and we hope to grow the number of resources available.

Indeed, suggestions would solve many problems! Still, the question is how to make it appealing for contribution. I really like button "Edit" on wikipedia, as it doesn't imply complex underlying revision processes and gives me around as much power as I want...

Can you please share your vision on the optimal knowledge management within EA? @EdoArad provided quite some ideas on how it could be organized, and among other I agree with the vision that if anywhere, the new knowledge base should be kept under EA Hub domain. So if you think it worth discussing, I'd be happy to engage.

Reply
Ben_West🔸5
0
0

But with all my respect to wikipedia, I think that having a local wiki would allow to focus on more action-related topics instead of some general knowledge

I'm curious to hear more about your concerns with just using Wikipedia. I agree that there will be some topics which are outside the scope of Wikipedia, but it seems like many EA-relevant topics are within the scope of Wikipedia, and do not have very well established pages. For example: there is no page on longtermism, cause neutrality, or the INT framework. Even the page on effective altruism itself is pretty short.

My guess is that someone could pretty easily just go through old Forum posts and copy facts into Wikipedia. E.g. the section on invertebrate sentience is two sentences long, and I would bet that a huge chunk of recent Forum posts on invertebrate sentience could be justifiably included in that Wikipedia article.

In general I have a lot of nervousness about trying to re-create an existing successful product (NIH syndrome), and my guess is that Wikipedia will be more considered trustworthy, get more views, and generally be more influential than a local wiki.

Reply
VPetukhov3
0
0

There are only two main concerns. The first was explained in details by @saulius, and I share his vision about motivation. Having something local would allow us to design award system in the way relevant for EA community and infrastructure.

The second is different scopes of relevance between local wiki and Wikipedia. Let's say, "List of annual EA events in Europe" would be relevant for EA community, but not for the others. I'd even expect that it could be harmful for the community to have such info on wikipedia. Moreover, searchability of a local wiki is much higher than for the global one. Though I think that this part can be addressed by having properly organized resource list, open for suggestions.

So, maybe it's better to focus on designing some mechanism to motivate people to contribute to the resources and the global wiki instead of creating the local one. Don't know what would be easier, and perhaps the answer depends very much on how EA Hub is going to organize suggestions.

EDIT: After some more considerations understood that I missed one more important point: knowledge distilling. At the moment, to find the latest ideas on some topic you need to go through dozens of the forum and blog posts, pages of individual organizations, facebook groups, slack channels, etc. Reducing time for such "research" would be very helpful. And I have doubts that it can be properly organized through resource lists, as the knowledge is very spread indeed. And again, because this information is relevant only within the community, I don't think wikipedia is the best place for it.

Reply
JP Addison🔸4
0
0

I'm interested in the answer to this question; I was just discussing it when discussing the EA Forum on a team retreat. I'm interested in the creation of reference documents in general. Something I was thinking about very brainstorm-y, no plans to implement in the near term) was to add a type of post to the EA Forum that allowed either direct editing or inline suggestions by not-the-author.

Reply
EdoArad3
0
0

Like a community wiki on stackexchange? Sounds valuable. (I think suggestions should be a default)

Reply
JP Addison🔸1
0
0

Like a community wiki on stackexchange?

What do you mean by that?

Reply
EdoArad6
0
0

Some questions on Stackoverflow or other sites in SE are marked as community wiki. This means that anyone (above a minimum reputation/Karma) can edit the question or the answers, that there is no "main author" anymore, but instead a mix of authors defined by percentage of contribution, no one gets reputation/Karma on anything.

I think that the loss of authorship is important so that anyone would feel comfortable editing the question/answers to make it a better source of up to date knowledge

Reply
EdoArad4
0
0

I've had a chat at the recent EAGx with Chris Watkins about his experience running Appropedia, a wiki devoted to sustainability, and asked him for some advice. Some points that I gathered:

  1. To kick things off, the wiki should have at least one person that can commit to managing the project, someone who is technically skilled (perhaps paid), and about 5 people who can be counted on as core contributors. 
  2. It needs to be acknowledged in the community as a respected place to point to. Should be coordinated in advance with people who are likely to use it as a reference and to people who are interested in contributing to it.
  3. Before starting a wiki, make sure that there would actually be enough users. 
  4. Work out the license in advance. Especially if importing materials from other sources (say previous wikis, or the forum). 
  5. It's best to set a culture where people can just write things in without much formatting. Other people can take care of readability later. Also, promote editing whenever the user feels like something needs to be added/adjusted/deleted - it's better to move fast and break things as it is easy to fix.

Chris offers to give more specific advice if we start related wiki projects.

.Appropedia has a page on making new successful wikis

Also, I noticed that the post and comments thus far didn't link to the interesting discussion about the PriorityWiki in this post.

Reply
More from VPetukhov
42
Data Science for Effective Good + Call for Projects + Call for Volunteers
3 authors
· · 5m read
9
9
31
Free Cloud Automation for your EA Org
3 authors
· · 1m read
4
4
36
What is EA opinion on The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?
Q
VPetukhov
· · 1m read
9
9
View more
Curated and popular this week
 ·  · 20m read
 · 
Advanced AI could unlock an era of enlightened and competent government action. But without smart, active investment, we’ll squander that opportunity and barrel blindly into danger. Executive summary See also a summary on Twitter / X. The US federal government is falling behind the private sector on AI adoption. As AI improves, a growing gap would leave the government unable to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges and threaten the legitimacy of its democratic institutions. A dual imperative → Government adoption of AI can’t wait. Making steady progress is critical to: * Boost the government’s capacity to effectively respond to AI-driven existential challenges * Help democratic oversight keep up with the technological power of other groups * Defuse the risk of rushed AI adoption in a crisis → But hasty AI adoption could backfire. Without care, integration of AI could: * Be exploited, subverting independent government action * Lead to unsafe deployment of AI systems * Accelerate arms races or compress safety research timelines Summary of the recommendations 1. Work with the US federal government to help it effectively adopt AI Simplistic “pro-security” or “pro-speed” attitudes miss the point. Both are important — and many interventions would help with both. We should: * Invest in win-win measures that both facilitate adoption and reduce the risks involved, e.g.: * Build technical expertise within government (invest in AI and technical talent, ensure NIST is well resourced) * Streamline procurement processes for AI products and related tech (like cloud services) * Modernize the government’s digital infrastructure and data management practices * Prioritize high-leverage interventions that have strong adoption-boosting benefits with minor security costs or vice versa, e.g.: * On the security side: investing in cyber security, pre-deployment testing of AI in high-stakes areas, and advancing research on mitigating the ris
 ·  · 11m read
 · 
Our Mission: To build a multidisciplinary field around using technology—especially AI—to improve the lives of nonhumans now and in the future.  Overview Background This hybrid conference had nearly 550 participants and took place March 1-2, 2025 at UC Berkeley. It was organized by AI for Animals for $74k by volunteer core organizers Constance Li, Sankalpa Ghose, and Santeri Tani.  This conference has evolved since 2023: * The 1st conference mainly consisted of philosophers and was a single track lecture/panel. * The 2nd conference put all lectures on one day and followed it with 2 days of interactive unconference sessions happening in parallel and a week of in-person co-working. * This 3rd conference had a week of related satellite events, free shared accommodations for 50+ attendees, 2 days of parallel lectures/panels/unconferences, 80 unique sessions, of which 32 are available on Youtube, Swapcard to enable 1:1 connections, and a Slack community to continue conversations year round. We have been quickly expanding this conference in order to prepare those that are working toward the reduction of nonhuman suffering to adapt to the drastic and rapid changes that AI will bring.  Luckily, it seems like it has been working!  This year, many animal advocacy organizations attended (mostly smaller and younger ones) as well as newly formed groups focused on digital minds and funders who spanned both of these spaces. We also had more diversity of speakers and attendees which included economists, AI researchers, investors, tech companies, journalists, animal welfare researchers, and more. This was done through strategic targeted outreach and a bigger team of volunteers.  Outcomes On our feedback survey, which had 85 total responses (mainly from in-person attendees), people reported an average of 7 new connections (defined as someone they would feel comfortable reaching out to for a favor like reviewing a blog post) and of those new connections, an average of 3
GiveWell
 ·  · 2m read
 · 
Recent cuts to US government foreign assistance have destabilized global health programs, impacting some of the most cost-effective interventions we’ve found for saving and improving lives, such as malaria nets, malaria chemoprevention, and community-based management of acute malnutrition. This situation is a major focus of our research team at the moment, and we’re working to balance a targeted, near-term response to urgent needs with a broad, long-term perspective of needs that may emerge. The US has historically provided roughly 20% to 25% ($12 billion to $15 billion) of the total global aid to support health programs, which combat malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, maternal and child health issues, and much more.[1] While the long-term effects remain uncertain and exact numbers remain difficult to ascertain, cuts of 35% to 90% of US foreign aid dollars are being publicly discussed by the administration.[2] We’ve created a webpage to provide an overview of how we’re responding, and we’ve started to record a series of conversations with our research team that shares timely snapshots of this rapidly evolving situation. Our first episode shared a broad overview of the impacts of US government aid cuts and GiveWell’s initial response. In our newly released second episode, GiveWell Program Officer Natalie Crispin joins CEO and co-founder Elie Hassenfeld to zoom in on a specific case, focusing on grants we’ve made to support urgent funding gaps for seasonal malaria chemoprevention (SMC). They discuss how SMC campaigns work, the impact of USAID funding pauses on SMC campaigns, and GiveWell’s response to keep SMC campaigns on track.   Listen to Episode 2: Addressing Urgent Needs in Seasonal Malaria Chemoprevention   This situation is changing daily, and we’re constantly learning more. You can listen or subscribe to our podcast for the latest updates and read a summary of key takeaways from each podcast conversation on our blog. GiveWell has so far directed approximately
Recent opportunities in Building effective altruism
4
Planned Pilot Project: Curated Video-Based EA Learning Platform
Erik Jentzen
· · 1m read
0
0
47
EA Global Referral Program
Ivan Burduk
· · 2m read
8
8
10
EAGxNordics in Norway: apply now
Amalie Farestvedt 🔸
· · 3m read
1
1
View more