Talk:Center for Applied Rationality

Add http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/magazine/the-happiness-code.html perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.123.3 (talk) 11:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've flagged this article for promotional language. The most blatant violation is the inclusion of the price of services, but plenty of other cleanup is required too. I'll start working on it. 00:54, 23 April 2016 (UTC)Pawg14 (talk)

Needs a source-based rewrite
Most of the article is from primary sources, including author bios written by the founders. The article claims third-party coverage - if it is notable, that should be sufficient - David Gerard (talk) 16:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been a week, I'm clearing the questionable sources. Have tried to source all to the RSes presented, except e.g., statement of organisational purpose - David Gerard (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Added NYT article
This NYT article, which is by far the best source, wasn't used for some reason. I've added it + some details taken from it. 208.54.87.183 (talk) 05:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Excellent - a solid RS on the cultish nature of the whole deal - David Gerard (talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Poor rewrite
The rewrite from Dgerard is pretty bad, with the loss of a good amount of notable content and the introduction of some cruft and NPOV issues. I fixed a bit of it but it probably should be revised and done from scratch. Nobody was watching the talk page, not me at least, during finals week, so I don't see much of a real consensus.  K . Bog  03:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It was extensively cited in detail. Your rewrite is a whitewash that pretends the RS citations don't exist - David Gerard (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Could you go into more detail? Which RS citations do I pretend not exist? And what does that have to do with you reverting the addition of new content and sources? Also, please note that there are many more factors in article quality besides being well-cited. The problem with your rewrite was that it was an unwieldy sloppily written amalgamation of negative material. For the point in the lead - you don't need to mention AGI twice within one short paragraph, that's bad writing since it's redundant, and it's something which has only been out for a couple weeks and has not been covered in reliable sources. Saying it's "focusing specifically on AI risk" instead of "promote rationality in order to reduce existential risk from artificial general intelligence" is also bad writing because it implies that it's no longer providing rationality workshops or rationality programs. Saying it "sells" workshops is poor writing which is not consistent with how such things are usually described on Wikipedia. Details about who attends the workshops and how long they are, the use of jargon and so on, and the 'interests' of members at CFAR aren't notable; you pretended that reliable sources didn't exist for the parts which you removed from Forbes and The Reasoner, the idea of the organization distributing copies of HPMOR is completely unsupported by the reference as far as I can tell, and the 'reliable source' showing that Yudkowsky is a consultant only states that he's provided on the website, something which is no longer the case.  K . Bog  18:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Preserving Schubert cite
CEA has no official affiliation with CFAR, and according to LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/stefan-schubert-bb18ab115/) Schubert was not employed at CEA at the time that the article (http://www.academia.edu/9623753/The_Center_for_Applied_Rationality_practical_techniques_for_overcoming_biases) was published in The Reasoner. I don't really see the case for excluding it from the article. It could excerpt something other than the high survey satisfaction rate, however, if people think that is too positive.  K . Bog  06:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)