Talk:Effective altruism/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Xx78900 (talk · contribs) 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I'm gonna review this for you. I was only just thinking yesterday I was going to buy a book on this topic, so this seems like a nice intro for me.Xx78900 (talk) 09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Review of previous reviews

Firstly, I'm going to take a quick look at the two failed noms, and check for unresolved issues.

Unresolved issues from GA 1

• In a similar but opposing view of the first reviewer, I think listing famous philanthropists in the lede is misplaced, and thinkers who coined / popularised the idea would be a better fit, such a Singer and MacEskill. As a whole I think the lede largely fails to summarise the article, spending too much time focusing on the actions of specific philanthropists and % dollar-growth, as opposed to a more general summary of concept.

There's some really great more detailed feedback on the lede below, which I will address later. That doesn't cover the "listing famous philanthropists" issue. Someone's fixed the famous philanthropists part (thank you!), and I will make a slight adjustment now, changing

* Prominent effective altruists include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill.

to be more specific:

* Prominent philosophers influential to the movement include Peter Singer, Toby Ord, and William MacAskill.

The bit about dollar growth has also been removed by someone else (thanks again!). Marking this point  Done for now, with the expectation of further improvements to the lede when i get to the detailed feedback later.

Ruthgrace (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely it should just list prominent members of the movement? And therefore should say Singer, MacAskill and Bankman-Fried, Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

if you include SBF, you should include dustin moskovitz, and maybe the Gates and Elon Musk.... putting us where we were before the good article review. I'm fine either way but I do want to get this article to good article status. welcome to use your own judgement to edit the article directly and report back here Ruthgrace (talk) 04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• "Effective altruist organizations such as Open Philanthropy prioritize evaluate causes by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework (ITN framework)." This is rewritten in accordance with the first review, but is still unwieldy. "prioritize evaluate"???

Here's another crack at it. Before:

* Effective altruist organizations such as Open Philanthropy prioritize evaluate causes by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework (ITN framework).

After:

* Effective altruist organizations prioritize cause areas by following the importance, tractability, and neglectedness framework.

 Done (but let me know if you intended this comment to apply to the rest of the paragraph, too)

Ruthgrace (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• The "Donation" section is still badly in need of a re-write.

 Deferred will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• The line which states that avoiding "careers that do significant direct harm, even if it seems like the negative consequences could be outweighed by donations. This is because the harms from such careers may be hidden or otherwise hard to measure", was re-written in accordance with GA1, but not particularly well. What is harm in this instance? This is still remarkably vague. There is a stand alone article, so this section doesn't have to be very long, but it should at least be clear in what its saying.

This concept isn't a part of the Earning to Give article, so I moved it there, and remove mention of it from this article, since it's a pretty specific concept to earning to give. I've also moved any other details from this section that weren't in the standalone article to the standalone article, and excerpted that article here. Marking  Done for now. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• "effective animal welfare altruists" is still in the article, but I can't find it in either of the two cited sources.

I'm changing this to effective altruists since I think it's obvious from the context that these are effective altruists who care about animal welfare.  Done Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

• The history section is no longer over-repetitive, but I find it highly questionable.

 Deferred will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later. Ruthgrace (talk) 05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Unresolved issues from GA 2

• A specific sentence is picked out as not needing seven citations, which it still has. I am glad to see the second reviewer mentioning this, as this was a big concern of mine while reading the article. It definitely and without question falls under WP:OVERCITE.

* Removed a citation about Good Ventures (primary source).

* Removed remaining primary source citations in History section. One on the singularity institute, one on the Giving What We Can history page, 80,000 hours about us page - these all have their own articles anyways. Another on Vox Future Perfect where there was already another citation from Vox. Deleted an FTX citation from The Economist where there was already another one from The Economist.

Ruthgrace (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

* in impartiality section: removed a primary citation to Animal Charity Evaluators, and another from 80K about longtermism

* in cause prioritization section: removed some primary citations to 80K and Open Phil

* in cost-effectiveness section: removed some primary citations to Givewell and replaced with Doing Good Better book citation. removed a half sentence that cited the open phil blog.

* in counterfactual reasoning section: remove primary source citation to 80K where there's already another citation

Ruthgrace (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I stopped recording each one here but I've removed primary sources and overcitations up until the end of the Cause Priorities section. More another time! Ruthgrace (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

• "Anti-capitalist and institutional critiques" was mentioned by the second reviewer as warranting it's own third level sub-heading, but all reference to such has been removed from the article, with no equivalent to replace it.

My own general comments

Having now read the article in its entirety and having checked with the previous reviews and their comments, I'm going to be honest and say that I am extremely skeptical that this article can be brought up to standard within the next week, and as a result I am quickfailing it. There is simply too much missing/wrong here.

• WP:OVERCITE is a big issue here.
• The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.
• I am also more generally concerned that the series box on the top is about evidence based practices as opposed to philosophies. Is Effective altruism purely a philanthropic venture? At the very least it should contain both an evidence based practices box and a philosophies box.
• I think that this article puts too much focus on philanthropic practice and not nearly enough on its philosophical backing.
• The body of this article is in places extremely lacking, and in others brimming with filler: I don't think a big list of notable organisations/individuals associated with Effective Altruism is either relevant or helpful here, it just bloats the article. I think a category, something like Category:Charities which practice effective altruism or something similar would be a better fit; failing that, a list article would do the job too.
• Given that I think this article is a long was from passing, I'm not going to post as thorough a review as a GAN would typically receive. That said, if the issues mentioned are dealt with in a timely fashion, ping me and I will do a second, more thorough review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   The prose is, in places, decidedly not clear, nor particularly concise. Also, why is (EA) in the opening sentence, when it's not used anywhere else? Is that even a thing?

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Fails WP:INTRO

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Some of the sources, such as those from [80000hours.org] are not independent of the subject, but rather advocate for its furthering and adoption. Also, though Singer is a Professor of Bioethics, I'm not sure that his pop-philosophy books should be quoted from, though I have no issue with his academic work being cited.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   The Philosophy section is far too short, the subsection suggested by the reviewer in the GA2 isn't included.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   It goes into unnecessary detail listing people / organisations involved, and also I'm unconvinced that the History section needs to include every work published by Singer, or the details of every relevant Vox article. Also, is the formation of a Facebook Group really notable? There's nothing formal about a facebook group.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   I haven't given this extensive though, but I agree with GA1 reviewer that this article reeds as though pushing an EA agenda.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   The images lack alt captions

 Done I believe I have added an alt caption to the only picture on the article. Danihab (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Fail. The article has not resolved the issues raised at previous GANs, and moreover, is a very long way from being in GA condition.

Response

Thanks for the GA review! I feel vindicated in my disapproval of the direction this article has taken in recent revisions. I agree with the reviewer that there is not nearly enough [emphasis] on its philosophical backing. The philosophy section was trimmed to the bone in recent revisions. Previous versions of the philosophy section may not have been adequate enough, but at least they had more content. The reviewer noted: "Anti-capitalist and institutional critiques" was mentioned by the second reviewer as warranting its own third level sub-heading, but all reference to such has been removed from the article, with no equivalent to replace it. This may have been part of the trend in recent revisions to strip out as much philosophy as possible. Biogeographist (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's strange that the philosophy section has been trimmed down a lot. The philosophy is such a core part of EA and it should be explained in as much detail as is reasonable. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The parts about being against systemic change have been moved to the cost effectiveness section, where I thought they were the most relevant.

I think it's important to be intentional about the contents of the philosophy section. I see that people think it should be longer but no one has mentioned a specific detail that is missing... Ruthgrace (talk) 06:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think all of the content in "Themes", particularly cause prio and cost-effectiveness, belong in the Philosophy section rather than the Practice section. Qzekrom (she/her • talk) 06:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I have no qualms with moving content that is in other parts of the article into the philosophy section :) Ruthgrace (talk) 07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Xx78900 thanks for the review! Really appreciate your time, and the feedback is super helpful. I do intend to keep working on this and will definitely take you up on your offer to tag you in for a more detailed review once we've addressed the current issues. Hope you don't mind me asking for a few clarifications to guide us as we continue to improve the article.

1. You said the donation section is badly in need of a rewrite. Can you explain what needs to be better? Is it difficult to read? Does it have the wrong content?

2. It seemed to me that the history section in previous versions was inaccurate and made it sound like effective altruism was started by Will MacAskill and CEA, ignoring other history such as the contributions of Singer, and I spent some time trying to fix this before going up for good article review again. What should be done to make it less "highly questionable"? Should parts of it be removed?

3. Can you explain a little more about what you think is wrong with the lede? Are there parts of the lede that should be cut? Parts of the article that should appear in the lede?

4. Can you give some examples of the kind of philosophical content that you think the article is missing?

5. Can you give some examples of parts of the article that are "extremely lacking" and "brimming with filler"?

6. Can you provide some sort of guideline or example to give us a better sense of what people and organizations should be mentioned and what shouldn't?

Finally, I want to note that I moved the anti-capitalist and institutional critiques (the subsection you mentioned was missing from Philosophy) to the end of the cost-effectiveness section, following WP:CRIT by folding it into where I thought it was the most relevant.

Thanks again! Ruthgrace (talk) 07:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Ruthgrace, my apologies for the delay in responding to you, I've been v busy IRL this past week. I'll happily provide more comments.

1. In regards the donation section, I must first admit my bias: usually I wouldn't mention my own politics, but as a socialist, the concept of altruistic donation as opposed to radical system change seems, to my eyes, a cop-out/vanity project, and so I may be overly critical in my analyses of this article. That not withstanding, my issues with this section are as follows:

• "Many effective altruists..." - too vague. Who, or how many?
• "... significant charitable donation." - What classifies it as significant? And without a benchmark, are we to assume that they do so to a greater extent than people who do not identify as effective altruists?
• "Some believe..." - Same problem, who is some?
• The wording of "alleviate suffering through donations" implies that the act of donating directly alleviates suffering.
• "Some even lead a frugal lifestyle in order to donate more." - Again, vague. Who? How many is some? What typifies a frugal lifestyle?
• I don't think listing some organisations affiliated with effective altruistic thought is the right way of handling things, certainly not in the manner it is done so here. Rather than give two examples in depth, maybe link to two big examples, and mention that there are others.
• What is the balance of Toby Ord's income? Does he donate a pound or a million pounds? Has the amount changed with inflation?
• More generally, this section talks about how people donate "effectively", but then just lists how much they donate. What makes some donation "effective", and some ineffective?
• Also as a general point, listing people who have made a lot of money and plan to donate it, doesn't seem very different from bog-standard philanthropy, and this section doesn't explain the difference at all.

Xx78900 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is great feedback and I'll be slowly addressing the points one by one over the coming weeks. Thank you!! Ruthgrace (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So EA is for systemic change. But I don't know how to write this in the article in a way that will be acceptable https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5XeCA5gKbMakAskLy/effective-altruists-love-systemic-change Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

2:

• Where does the first sentence of the history section fit into the context of the history of the movement? Again one of the biggest problems with this article, it's just namedropping people but not explaining their relevance. To be more specific, this man "anticipated" many of the ideas. How so, and in what context? Has he been identified as advocating a philosophy that might be considered a proto-effective altruism?
• Several communities? This is vague to the point of being almost devoid of meaning imo. Moreover, I don't understand what the purpose of the bullet point list is, if not to name drop institutions linked to EA.
• The Facebook Group is a meaningless metric. Anyone can found a facebook group.
• Why list all of Singer's books? They don't belong here.
• "As the movement formed"? Why is the formation of the ideology so far into its history section? Also what defines it as a "movement"?
• Really, most of this section is just a list of things related to EA, instead of exploring the history of EA as a school of thought, how its aspects have grown and changed. The history of its popularity is not irrelevant, but its not properly explored here.
• Is "Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues" a book or a journal? Is it necessary to list every book on the topic here?
• I find it highly questionable because I find it largely not an exploration of the history of movement at all, just a list of things that are related to it arranged chronologically.

Xx78900 (talk) 11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, the history of effective altruism is essentially that several related communities felt a need to create a larger movement, and ended up converging together into what is now capital letter Effective Altruism. The bullet point is that list of communities. Separately, Singer also encouraged followers of his work (who were not part of a specific community) to be a part of effective altruism. Do you have any advice on how to convey this better in the article? Ruthgrace (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, if it's all background (and it seems to be) I'd drop it, or if you can refine it, label it as Background, not History. It is the background to the movement, not the history of it. I would much prefer to see the history of the development of the ideology, how it has grown and evolved, and different theorists different opinions on / interpretations of it. Xx78900 (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

3. The Lede

• Is it a social movement? As in, is it labelled such by independent sources, not the advocates of the idea of EA? Because it seems (to me) to be too scattered and individual, lacking widespread adoption, and most importantly, without a clear goal, to be a social movement.
• There's nothing overly challengeable in the lede, so I would move all citations to the body, bar that for the quotation.
• That said, I personally amn't mad on the notion of opening the definition with a quote. It's not 'wrong' per se, and it certainly wouldn't interfere with a future GA nom, but I would prefer a simple explanation and this quote to be in the body.
• I think effective altruists should be bolded, not in italics.
• "Significant charitable donation" again, I hate the word 'significant' here. If it was back up in the body it would be one thing, and I actually think it would be appropriate, but as I've said above, I don't believe it is.
• "good" should be wikilinked. It should also be defined in the body, but in the lede it's fine to just leave it as is, thought it is such an open-ended term.
• Not sure if it's necessary or even helpful to have the link around "cause priorities". I expected it to explain what cause priorities were, not bring to the list of specific priorities within EA.
• I would also phrase it as something like "the promotion of global health and develeopment and animal welfare, and mitigating risks to .."
• Wikilink "impartiality"
• Don't italicise EA at the end of the lede, put it in inverted commas, 'effective altruism'. Should it be name, or phrase?

4. What is lacking in philosophy

• Now first of all it is important to note that I am far from an expert on EA philosophy or theory, so take this with a pinch of salt. Also, I would like to mention that this section is substantially improved from when I faield the review but it is still lacking.
• Though this article mentions utilitarianism in passing, I fail to see how EA is compatible with it - it seems to me to be altogether subordinate to it, as in it seems to me that EA is a form of utilitarianism.
• Why is Christianity specified? Is it many, or Christianity?
• "Effective altruism can also be in tension with religion insofar as religion emphasizes spending resources on worship and evangelism instead of causes that do the most good." I have massive problems with this sentence. Once again I ask, religion, or Christianity? Even within Christianity, what about good works focused denominations such as Methodism? Moreover, what is the most good? We have no more access to that truth than anyone, and to say that evangelism isn't "good" would be hotly contested by people who are Christian, who may argue it is the most good one can do.
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.
• You should probably mention veganism alongside factory farming, particularly given the emphasis on Singer in this article.
• Make an explicit link between cause neutrality and impartiality.
• Also, forgive me potentially misunderstanding the opening paragraph: It seems to me that the implication is that EA donors don't pay as much attention to effectiveness or evidence as non-profits, even if the on-profits are limited in their scope.
• What's an "evaluate cause"? Or should it say that they prioritize evaluating causes
• Neglectedness could be better explained
• "into the scale" into is the wrong preposition
• Counter factual reasoning shouldnt be linked if it just goes to ten lines underneath
• What is the importance of each of the components related to gathering information? Also, "The information required may require", should say something like "Collecting the information required may necessitate..."
• "disability-adjusted life years (DALY) reduced per dollar" Reduced or extended?
• The second paragraph of Cost-effectiveness reads like it belongs in a criticism section. Why isn't there a criticism section anyway? Without it, this article doesn't offer a full WP:NPOV
• "Since there is a high supply of candidates for such positions, however, ..."
• !!! "it makes sense" !!! Wikipedia does not advocate this position!
• The last line of counterfactual reasoning isnt sufficiently explained
• The whole counterfactual reasoning section is too narrow in its focus on that one specific example.

More to follow. Xx78900 (talk) 17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

this is fantastic. i will start addressing feedback items one by one from the top. Ruthgrace (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"Whether or not effective altruists should consider difficult-to-measure but potentially high-impact interventions such as institutional or structural change remains controversial."

This isn't true. I'm unsure what evidence is admissable here, but I can provide 10s of millions of dollars of funding towards institutional and structural change:

- pandemic preparedness candidates. https://puck.news/inside-s-b-f-s-12-million-long-shot/

- shifting philanthropy to focus on outcomes

- givedirectly pushing cash transfers

- the uptake of antimalarials and deworming worldwide. Nathan PM Young (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC)