Lead developer for the EA Forum
I feel like this post wants to talk about organizing as a side project, but is better suited to professional community organizing. As a side project it could give connections and within-movement credentials that can be quite useful in other altruistic endeavors.
An important note about this is that the tag relevance feature is a special feature designed to counter the exact effect you describe. The way most tagging systems work, if you tag a very popular post with tag "Foo" then it will be shown first to people looking for Foo-related posts. But with our tagging system, users can say "this isn't very relevant" and it will stay with a low "tag relevance". See the Forecasting tag, and notice how the Forecasting newsletter comes above the LTF Fund grant post, despite being less popular overall.
So I'd say to be liberal with your application of tags and let the relevance system do the filtering.
What page are you on when you want this? Do you spend a lot of time reading Recent Discussion on the homepage? On posts the header goes away when you scroll down and the bottom bar never appears at all.
Welcome! I like your writing. I found it humorous and moving. As for your question, I think you'll good general advice here: https://www.effectivealtruism.org/get-involved.
Re: your edit - yep, that will come with the new editor, though maybe not in the first iteration.
Why is pure accuracy overrated?
Can you give your reflections on the limits of expertise?
Some of this will appear with the new editor, which has collaborative editing features built in.
but the UX doesn't seem intuitive, otherwise I would have noticed already
I admire your confidence. There's a sense in which if an experienced user doesn't know about a feature, it isn't well designed. OTOH, I assign some probability you've forgotten what the new post dialogue looks like.
What you describe is almost exactly identical to an admin feature that we have from LessWrong. Which isn't much help to you yet, but might get released more widely.
(This is something we haven't edited from LessWrong, so this is me speaking for why I agree with their call, not why I made it myself.) I'd say it's a little of both. I'd like to allow users to change it if it's important, but heavily discourage changes that lose continuity of user identification without much gain. If you have to talk to a human to do it, you're only going to do that if you think it's important. Maybe in the ideal case we'd do something like facebook, where they let you do it, but discourage you through multiple levels of "are you sure?" and "you won't be able to change your name again for x days". And/or we could implement moderator review. But we probably won't prioritize building these, as it seems like a lot of UI functionality that will be very rarely exercised, which is a recipe for bugs.