Commenting here to avoid a misconception that some readers of this post might have. I wasn't trying to "spread effective altruism" to any community with these editing efforts, least of all the Wikipedia community (it's also worth noting that the Wikipedia community that participates in these debates is basically disjoint from the people who actually read those specific pages in practice -- many of the latter don't even have Wikipedia accounts).
Some of the editing activities were related to effective altruism in these two ways: (1) The pages we edited, and the content we added, were disproportionately (though not exclusively) of interest to people in and around the EA-sphere, and (2) Some of the topics worked on, I selected based on EA-aligned interests (an example would be global health and disease timelines).
i've deleted the post because I would like to make one on this issue with greater subtlety and nuance to do the complex topic of this saga better justice than my rather late night post did - thanks for your comment, I will take it into account.
One way to think about this is as a complement to a nonprofit board. My understanding is that in the US, nonprofits usually have a largish board which advise partly on how the nonprofit's actions might affect the wider community. As with most UK organizations, the CEA board is small, so we wanted to add in a few more voices. In neither case is the board typically suggested or drawn up by the public. Of course, anyone who wants to give us input on decisions we make is welcome to do so at email@example.com.
I'd like clarify that of the 3 people who are outside voices on the board, only one (Peter) did a summer internship for a CEA project years ago.
Apologies I had it in my head that ACE was a CEA project
According to my facebook this topic has had 156 comments on the EA facbook group already. I don't want to repeat or diminish those comments here so what is the purpose of opening a parallel discussion here as this seems like a topic which has attracted a huge amount of EA discussion already?
One thing I am disappointed about is that this has just been announced - there was no public process or call for comment on the advisory council, its role or what criteria should have been used to choose its members - to the extent that happened all of that was in private as far as I can tell. So all of the power in this situation was held by the CEA and people close to you in informal networks. To get wider views you have chosen a team of 4- 3of whom are or have previously been employed by CEA.
To the extent this is about opening CEA to wider views I can't see how it does that. Perhaps to mitigate my meandering can the members of the council give one example of something the CEA has done in the last 12 months they are willing to publicly disagree with?
In the original facebook thread I was highly critical of intentional insights, I have not read all the followup here yet, but I would like to note that after that thread the next "thing" I saw from Intentional Insights was this post about EA marketing. I thought that was a highly competent and interesting contribtuion to the EA community. All of the ongoing concerns about II may stand - but there is clearly a few people associated with the org who have valuable contributions to make to the future of the community,
I have about ~2000 edits on wikipedia (alasdairedits) and have created a number of DYK articles (though not for several years). I have been thinking about getting back into wikipedia editing and this might be a good way to do so. I know that paid (i.e PR editing on wikipedia) has become a big issue recently though. I would like to know more about how your work interacts with the COI/NPOV guidelines and how you ensure your articles and offering to pay people remains within that scheme. Have you considered using the on site reward board (I don't know how active that is) which would get less related wikipedians involved
It would be good to get feed
What is the desired range of length, if any? Is there any provision in submitting to a journal for originality? I want to avoid writing something that is similar to something already published. I'll double check myself, of course, but I could still miss it.
Are you SURE that's the deadline? ;^)
9000 words - http://commons.pacificu.edu/eip/styleguide.html
I don't think it would be unfair to characterise your argument as: "I have a hunch based on my "tacit knowledge", a report written by a consultancy firm a decade ago and my background in a tangentially related field that the conservative party has been working in secret for 9 years on a bill of "economic rights and freedoms" which they are going to suddenly unveil and force through parliament in a few months attached to their public Bill of rights Proposals. This bill is going to cause all sorts of negative effects by making the courts interfere with a class of laws I am in favour of (Through mechanisms which are unclear).
Leaving aside for the moment whether this is plausibly true or a reasonable way of making judgements - I still don't understand how it relates to effective altruism or how/what you actually want people to do.
Just changed it to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, so posting it elsewhere is fine (or even encouraged).
I think this is the way to go - but a CC attribtuion license is very different from an assignment of intellectual property (in a good way!) - you will need to provide attribtution on the about page and any subsequent usage of the entry for one thing (the whole point of an attribution licenese is to protect those moral rights!). so you should update your faq to reflect this.
So assuming you don't win, are you allowed to post your essay on your own blog? Or would this undermine CEA's ability to cannibalize bits of it?
Per above - CEA owns (is assigned) all the intellectual property of any entry. So posting your essay elsewhere without their permission would be a copyright violation.
© 2017 Effective Altruism Forum |
Powered by reddit