I currently hold an EA Grant to improve and expand the EA Wiki content. If you have any feedback about my work, you are welcome to submit it, anonymously or otherwise, here:
In this particular example, I think it makes sense to keep Bob's list, since it serves to characterize the discipline, and then we can cover in detail the relevant ones. I don't think it makes much sense to keep references for the non-relevant topics, though. (But I believe you already removed those.)
In general, I think topics that have no clear reference to EA should not be discussed. But I would imagine that this may be sometimes necessary because otherwise the treatment of the subject of the entry may look unacceptably incomplete or fragmentary. In these cases, one may want to briefly discuss those topics and then zoom in selectively on the EA-relevant ones. I'll try to keep this issue in mind and update as we stumble upon other cases where it arises.
The Organization Formerly Known as Centre for Enabling EA Learning & Research (TOFKACEEALAR)?
More seriously, perhaps you could look into the history of utopian communities for inspiration? Some had nice names, such as Owen's 'New Harmony'. Another option is to use the form 'x House', where x is the name of some suitable person or idea (as an example, someone previously suggested 'Bentham House').
Done. (Though I used the name constraints on effective altruism, which seemed more accurate. I don't have strong views on whether the preposition should be 'in' or 'on', however, so feel free to change it.)The article should be substantially revised (it was imported from EA Concepts), I think, but at least its scope is now better defined.
FWIW, this was also my reaction.
Months ago I added the paragraph below, but I now believe it isn't really appropriate given the current length of the entry, so I've removed it. It is unclear to what extent the EA community believes that individuals have a moral obligation to pursue the most impactful career, so an objection to that view shouldn't occupy a significant fraction of the article. If the article is expanded to cover arguments for such a view, the paragraph could be reinstated.
Some authors argue that there is no moral requirement to pursue the most impactful career. Such a requirement would be excessively demanding. The choice of a career may be comparable in its centrality to a person's life as the choice of a marriage partner. But few believe a person is morally required to choose an impact-maximizing marriage. By analogy, it may be concluded that there is no moral requirement to choose an impact-maximizing career (Cholbi 2020).
I've deliberately kept the reference to the paper in the Bibliography, and added a line summarizing its contents, since it is still of potential interest to readers.
Thanks. Not sure what happened here, since the name change doesn't show up in the edit history. In any case, it's now reverted.
The improvements are now ported to the Wiki. Not only can you vote for individual contributions, but you can also see, for each article, a list of each contributor, and see their contributions by hovering over their names. Articles now also show a table of contents, and there may be other features I haven't yet discovered. Overall, I'm very impressed!
Good to know. If you notice this again, could you please let me know so I can investigate? Thanks.