I don't have a view of the level of moderation in general, but think that warning Halstead was incorrect. I suggest that the warning be retracted.
It also seems out of step with what the forum users think - at the time of writing, the comment in question has 143 Karma (56 votes).
Agreed; the problems of academia are not similar to those of a pyramid scheme.
I'm not sure how people conceive of these tags/entries, but standard wikis and encyclopedias of course do have super-categories which you don't have to delete just because you add entries on the constituent sub-categories. Such super-categories can be useful. But it depends on the function of the tags/entries.
Deference is one part of social epistemology, and potentially it's slightly inelegant to have a tag for the conjunction of a topic and a proper part of that topic. So this tag could perhaps be split into two: "epistemic deference" and "social epistemology". Or you could just have an "epistemic deference" tag, in case there isn't enough stuff to go under the "social epistemology" tag.
If you go for having a separate deference tag, I think it's better to call it "epistemic deference", since the word "deference" can also be used in other, non-epistemic senses.
How to balance inside vs outside views doesn't seem to be part of social epistemology, strictly speaking, since the problem arises for individuals as well.
I support merging them and calling the tag "effective giving".
Maybe part of the issue is that the idea that this tag is for isn't crisply defined.
But insofar as one wants a tag for precisely this idea, maybe the adverb "scalably" could be replaced with "large-scale" or "at scale" or something like that. E.g. "Large-scale use of labour".
Regardless of what other terms one uses, is the term "scalably" necessary? It's a slightly awkward term, and makes the phrase a bit clunky.
Yes, I agree. I also think that the questions aren't representative but likely were chosen because people tend to answer them incorrectly.
Googling, I primarily find the term "high-quality evidence" in association with randomised controlled trials. I think many would say there isn't any high-quality evidence regarding, e.g. AI risk.
Yeah or just ask people on Mechanical Turk or similar. (You could ask if people have already heard about EA and see if that makes a difference.)