Talk:Effective altruism

I hesitate to remove "With approximately 7,000 people active in the effective altruism community" from the introduction. Not that the source is unreliable, but I just don't think these approximations can be very precise, notably given that it's unclear how to determine if someone is active in the community. On the other hand, even an imprecise approximation may be considered relevant information for readers. Alenoach (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

:That bothers me as well. If possible, it would be good to add some qualification about how the EA community was defined to arrive at that number. Biogeographist (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

::I don't have access to the source since it's pay walled. The figure may be based on the number of adherents to Giving what we can in 2022. I think it's probably better to just remove it from the introduction and perhaps add later in the article the number of pledgers to Giving what we can. Alenoach (talk) 23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

:I went ahead and removed it.Essence of nightshade (talk) 00:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Please @Alenoach, explain to me why the changings I made in the introduction are not 'factual' and why is the simplest version better, while even lacking the MoS instruction to justify the notability of the subject. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:Hi @JoaquimCebuano, I'm not saying that it's not factual, but I think that the previous one was particularly efficient at succinctly presenting the topic while avoiding vague language. Whether one approves or not what EA does in practice, the quote describes what they are advocating for.

:Regarding notability, the third paragraph already covers the growth and influence of effective altruism, so I think that this introduction already covers why the topic is considered notable. Alenoach (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::1) Beginning from the simplest, i cant see what or how the third paragraph says about 'the growth and influence of effective altruism', from my perspective it says nothing. It merely talks about the origin, then the influential theorists, then elite universities/silicon valley ties. This has really nothing to do with notability. This cannot be compared with my addition at the end of the first paragraph.

::2) While not prohibited or anything, quotes are to be treated with caution, following the MoS, a quote in the first phrase is not an ideal form for an encyclopedic introduction. Now, the content of the quote is really problematic, it says barely nothing, again. "using evidence and reason" is a poor definition for anything, and the quote in question doesnt say much beyond it. This merely endorses the vulgar EA talking point that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers. None of these terms are qualified by the quote nor the remaining paragraphs, and i think this fails both the demand of summarization and impartiality. I cant see the purpose of prioritizing simpleness and conciseness when it fails to inform. In my rephrasing I attempted to state that their criteria of accuracy for evidence and rationality are self-defined, as well as mentioning some central concepts.

::I am open to chances in the modification made, but maintaining it as it is right now strikes me as unreasonable, given the partial endorsement and the poverty of the definition. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I think WP:LEDE applies in that we should be succinct as possible. For an encyclopedia entry about a philosophy, we should probably just focus on what it is advocating and why, which seems fine enough.

:::If folk want more details, they can read the rest of the article. We don't need to worry about including the growth and influence of EA unless if its a notable part of the article.

:::IDK if the quote in a first sentence is a good way to start an article, as a rule, but it doesn't seem that long of a quote. Not sure if its advocating, but agree its a poor definition. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Maybe...

::::Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates impartially calculating benefits and prioritizing causes to provide the greatest good.

::::Its short, succinct, neutral, and uses the section headings from the article to lead the viewer to understand what EA is about. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::Good, yet i think that 1) it should be stated that the movement defines their criteria of rationality or calculation as well as 'good' because these are not plain concepts at all; and 2) i think it should be characterized as philanthropic, because this is what it is, a philosophy for philanthropy and a philanthropical network; 3) the information at the end of the paragraph should be reinstated, even if in a briefer version. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{Quote|Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates a form of philanthropy based on evidences regarded as scientifically accurate as well as its interpretation by defined criteria of rationality, which involves concepts of impatiality, effectiveness and the so-called cause priorization. The community around effective altruism, whose participants are sometimes called effective altruists, pursue a variety of approaches examined and defined within the movement, which range from a selective donation effort to charities, some of them founded by reputed effective altruists themselves, as well as the choice careers with the aim of maximizing positive impact, among others. The movement has achieved significant popularity outside the academy since 2010, spurring the creation of university-​based institutes, research centers, advisory organizations and charities, which, collectively, have donated several hundreds of millions of dollars. EA has a specially influential status within animal advocacy.}}

:::::I cant see a problem in this, only in the structure of 'as well as its interpretation', which could be better indeed. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::::I understand that, but my modification didnt made the introduction less succinct, i mostly rewrited the quote and added the notability information at the end. The lede is vague now, terribly vague to be honest, and biased. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::1) I don't think there is a big issue with notability in this introduction, or that the third paragraph would have nothing to do with EA's notability.

:::2) The phrase "using evidence and reason" may seem basic, but it can be a distinguishing feature in the philanthropic landscape. Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making. Organizations like GiveWell exemplify EA's emphasis on analysis and evidence-based approaches.

:::The quote "using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis" is widely used by EA organizations to define EA.[https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ceas-guiding-principles] The language used does not appear excessively vague, loaded or self-serving, especially compared to stated philanthropic goals in general. We could remove the reference to "Effective altruism: introduction" if desired.

:::Even though I prefer to keep the quote since it is notable and subtly phrased, Bluethricecreamman's opening sentence is also good: "Effective altruism (EA) is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates impartially calculating benefits and prioritizing causes to provide the greatest good." Alenoach (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

::::Something widely used is not necessarily defining, this quote is vague, loaded and self-serving. "Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making", thats your POV right there, the article shouldnt assume it as plain as that. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::{{re|JoaquimCebuano}} Your profile says that you are Brazilian, so you may not be familiar with the "charity landscape" in the US, where I live. The mailbox of my mother, who also lives in the US, is {{em|deluged}} with a vast quantity of mailings full of emotional appeals from charities. The statement "Many charities rely more on emotional appeals or intuition-based decision-making" is certainly true for the US context. However, your previous statement above about {{tq|the vulgar EA talking point that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers}} is not true. It is {{em|not}} true that {{em|all}} non-EA charities rely on such appeals, and the CEA definition of effective altruism does {{em|not}} imply that, and I have never read anything in the EA literature that makes such a hyperbolic claim. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::This claim, attributed to EA, has been often voiced by other activists who interacted with effective altruists, especially in animal advocacy circles. This is remarked in the book published by Oxford, The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does. But you are right, I dont know the US scenario. However, i think the discordance might come from something more radical - I think we think of different things when talking about this. Charity might imply one set of institutions and activists, while I emphasized 'philanthropy' in my edition, because i think philanthropy implies a more broad and less charged meaning. More importantly, I think philanthropy is closer (than charity) to humanitarianism, which implies a structured and long term kind of effort. As far as I understand, EA has a small but significant presence in what can be described as humanitarian agencies, at least this has been [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/k6bXLvJQw6W9hjKzR/ea-and-the-united-nations discussed in EA forums] and has also been [https://www.undp.org/future-development/signals-spotlight-2023/changing-face-altruism mentioned in UN related sites], among other sources. Thats the main reason why i dont think its fair nor precise to use this calculative-emotional distinction, because non-EA ideologies of humanitarian-philanthropy aid cant be described by this polarity.

::::::So, in resume, I stand by the claim of a possible yet not intrinsic bias of EA against other conceptions of philanthropy, and I think the article would gain from a more general conception of humanitarian-philanthropy aid when trying to establish EA specificity. My point is that, rigorously speaking (and this article demands a philosophical rigor by its own identification as philosophy) it should be made explicit, in the introduction, that EA established its own criteria of 'reason' and 'evidence', because neither of these terms are evident in themselves, and can be highly charged when used plainly - thats is not to say that the current version of the first paragraph isnt significantly better than the previous one. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the response, {{u|JoaquimCebuano}}. Re: {{tq|i dont think its fair nor precise to use this calculative-emotional distinction, because non-EA ideologies of humanitarian-philanthropy aid cant be described by this polarity}}. I think that's a good criticism; do you have a reliable source that clearly makes that critique? I'm not convinced that the lead section is the place to mention that, but the "Philosophy" section would be a good place for it if there is a source.

:::::::Another way of framing what I think you are pointing toward is that EA has assumptions that need to be made more explicit. Have you seen Scott Alexander's blog post [https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/effective-altruism-as-a-tower-of "Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions"] (2022)? He analyzes EA assumptions into 5 increasingly controversial (or controvertible) levels or "floors" of assumptions, and he argues (as I recall) that the most foundational assumptions are quite simple. That is one way of thinking about the vagueness of the CEA definition: it's vague because it's the most basic level. That is not to deny that the prominent philosophers of EA would interpret that basic level in terms of the higher-level assumptions that should be made explicit, but even among effective altruists there would not be unanimity in the interpretation of that basic level, that is, in the extra assumptions that people use to interpret that basic level. Biogeographist (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

::::::::@Biogeographist Thats the point, I really think there is much more that need to be made explicit, independently of any discussions around criticism. I will look at this article and also search for some more before proposing any other change. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

::You should note that in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Effective_altruism/GA3 last review of this article] the reviewer pointed the WP:OVERCITE issue and said that "The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.". JoaquimCebuano (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure why you mentioned the WP:OVERCITE essay; that issue mentioned in 2022 seems to have been largely resolved. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

By the way, the quotation of the CEA definition that is endorsed by multiple organizations was chosen after discussion here: Talk:Effective altruism/Archive 2#Definition of Effective Altruism. But I think it is important to address the issues that {{u|JoaquimCebuano}} raised, at least the valid issues. As I said above, I don't think it's true that the CEA definition implies {{tq|that everyone but them [effective altruists] are emotional, even passional decision makers}} as JoaquimCebuano claimed, so I don't think that's a valid issue. Biogeographist (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_altruism&diff=prev&oldid=1238242887 attempted to delete] this: "[...] , which, collectively, have donated several hundreds of millions of dollars." I don't have a precise number or good reliable sources to provide for how much EA organizations have donated, but it seems underestimated by an order of magnitude. Even just considering Open Philanthropy, when you sum all the donations in the spreadsheet,[https://www.openphilanthropy.org/grants/] it amounts to $3.2 billion, which is consistent with what is written in the Wikipedia article Open Philanthropy. I don't have access to the book, perhaps it's inaccurate or phrased in a particular way? Alenoach (talk) 18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

:The books states this exact amount. But I agree that we should change if there is a secondary source determinating the amount donated by organizations such as open philanthropy, I just think its important to speak something amount values, given that this is a good, even the main indication of EA notability. I will try to search something today. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

New source: Taillandier, A., Stephens, N., & Vanderslott, S. (2025). [https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2024.2439715 "Effective altruism, technoscience and the making of philanthropic value"]. Economy and Society, 1–25.

:Critics have found EA philanthropy to be mostly conservative: despite its ‘willingness to challenge the status quo’ (Future of Life Institute, Citation2016), it dilutes philosophical ideas into ‘an empowering investment opportunity’ (Srinivasan, Citation2015), focuses on individual donations rather than political advocacy and institutional action aiming at structural change (Blunt Citation2022; Herzog, Citation2016; Lechterman, Citation2022; Saunders-Hastings, Citation2019), and assumes a ‘rescue’ idea of philanthropy with deep depoliticizing and paternalist effects (Deveaux, Citation2021, pp. 48–79). Sociologists have described EA as the latest iteration of ‘philanthrocapitalism’ – a mode of philanthropic action privileging donations to for-profits and interventions into domains with high expected returns, manifesting the extension of market-based methods and private funding priorities to traditional spheres of state intervention, such as health and development (Eikenberry & Mirabella, Citation2017; McGoey & Thiel, Citation2018). While evidence-based philanthropy is not a new phenomenon, philanthrocapitalism also manifests the incursion of ‘high-net-worth individuals’ from the technology sector in a space traditionally dominated by large foundations (Depecker et al., Citation2018; Haydon et al., Citation2021; McGoey Citation2012a, Citation2015). EA actors themselves, calling for alliances with other actors in the charity sector, have noted the tensions arising from such reconfigurations of the philanthropic field (Gabriel Citation2017). Our study contributes to clarifying how structural transformations in philanthropy affect giving practices, institutions and rhetoric."

Should this source be added? Viriditas (talk) 08:23, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Absolutely. [https://newn.cam.ac.uk/person/apolline-taillandier Scholarly source] and squarely on-topic.Essence of nightshade (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Usually, a good way to know the opinion of a community on a particular topic is to have a poll. The only [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AJDgnPXqZ48eSCjEQ/ea-survey-2022-demographics#Beliefs poll about political opinions in EA] that I know of, done in 2022, shows 76.6% of left-leaning members and only 2.9% of right-leaning members. If the results were the opposite, it would seem ok to say they are convervatives. But that's more than twenty times more left-leaning people than right-leaning.

:In this other discussion, you responded that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. But [https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/AJDgnPXqZ48eSCjEQ/ea-survey-2022-demographics#Beliefs the information on the poll] seems easily verifiable, and unless one believes it's a grand conspiracy, there isn't much reason to doubt the raw data of this poll. Moreover, I'm not asking to include the source in the article, just to consider it in the context of this discussion. We shouldn't include false claims in the article simply because we refuse to consider evidence of the contrary. Alenoach (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Polls can be biased in many ways quite easily; one doesn't need to assume a grand conspiracy to doubt them. I don't see a particular need to avoid "false" claims about movement politics in this case, where we have strong sourcing. I'm also not sure that the self-identification demographics you provide constitute evidence against the source's claims about the activities of the movement at large. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I disagree, it was simply a question about political orientations, with the answers "Left", "Center left", "Center", "Center right", "Right", "Libertarian", "Other". Virtually any adult understands what "Right" and "Left" means in a political context. The answer "Right" in particular got 0.7% only, and "Center right" 2.2%. "Left" got 36.8% and "Center left" got 39.8%. The results are similar to those [https://rethinkpriorities.org/research-area/eas2019-community-demographics-characteristics/#Politics in the 2019 survey]. If EAs were politically oriented on the right, they surely wouldn't like to be misrepresented as being leftists. Alenoach (talk) 19:25, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::::You seem to be missing the point. I haven't yet found in the EaS source a claim that EAs are individually right-leaning. You also oversimplify political labels; they may mean different things to different people. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 13:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::thats an online poll on the forum board of the effective altruism website. It isn't really reliable. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

:Include. The journal appears to be peer-reviewed. If necessary, the perspective could be attributed in prose. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

::Of course it should be attributed.Essence of nightshade (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I note that the source only uses "conservative" when describing how others have characterized EA. Its own conclusions focus on the movement advancing its worldview and changing the philanthropic status quo. WeyerStudentOfAgrippa (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:It might be worth including if attributed. But it would seem misleading to summarize the quoted "mostly conservative" criticism in any way that implies that Effective Altruism is part of Conservatism in the United States or shares any of its current major political goals. Rather, it seems pretty obvious (e.g. from the "despite" at the beginning) that this passage uses "conservative" in the sense of Effective Altruism insufficiently questioning the status quo - e.g. not engaging in the kind of efforts to dismantle capitalism or other aspects of current societal structures that progressive scholars like Deveaux favor (whose cited publication is titled [https://academic.oup.com/book/39150 "Poverty, Solidarity, and Poor-Led Social Movements"]). Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, GreyFell. I'm not sure [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_altruism&diff=1293177838&oldid=1293167504 why you completely removed all references to effective altruism's influence] within elite universities (I found multiple books and online internet resources acknowledging explicitly this) when it's conceded even by people within the movement. You also seem to think that it's a "compliment" when elitism is one of the most common criticisms of the movement.

At the very least, a majority of the edit should be restored until the rest is figured out, since both the "list of universities" where it is particularly influential in and praises/criticism have been mentioned readily online. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:35, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Not listing Centre for Effective Altruism, Future of Life Institute, Open Philanthropy, Against Malaria Foundation, Givewell, Centre for the Study of Existential Risk, Giving Multiplier, and Giving What We Can in the lead (or anyone else in the article) makes no sense.

:EA people's focus (or obsession to critics) on AI safety risk is also widely noted. It does a disservice to the reader if none of this is mentioned.

:I don't doubt that people have described the movement as having trouble in 2022 with Sam Bankman-Fried but people influenced by or directly considering themselves members of the movement are now running/influencing/historically influenced Anthropic, OpenAI, Safe Superintelligence, Google DeepMind, and many other frontier AI companies. To call this critical information (often criticized) is an understated.

:I don't doubt that the changes could also be improved but it's a clear step up. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:The increasing division [https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/29/business/elon-musk-longtermism-effective-altruism-doge.html is explicitly mentioned here] too. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:Major colleges [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/05/ai-apocalypse-college-students/ are listed here and in other books about the subject manner]. All agree that it thrives in elite, historic institutions (Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, etc.) tech schools (Cal Tech), and American-British flagship/major schools (Wisconsin, UC Berkeley, UCLA, etc.).

:Not sure what is being disputed. Seems uncontroversial and clearly important enough to include as a foundational introduction to the movement. The movement recruits heavily in universities and all of those universities are repeatedly mentioned in secondary/third sources. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::This is one of the pitfalls of making major changes like this. Incremental changes with edit summaries are much easier to evaluate, but even that wouldn't necessarily be sufficient. Sorry, but I do not agree that it's a clear step up, or I wouldn't have reverted. There is room for improvement, but there are multiple issues which make this massive change too difficult to triage.

::Examples need to come from reliable, independent sources. Further, this needs to be summarized neutrally, without editorializing. Listing these in the lead is just too much. It reads as name-dropping and provides no context. Adding long lists like this decreases readability for little benefit to readers. Further, the lead is generally intended to be a summary of the body, so expanding the lead while removing the paragraph on Bankman-Fried diminishes the lead.

::Further, there is a WP:DUE issue. The mere existence of a student group is not encyclopedically noteworthy even if it can be sourced. It appears that many of these sources are too weak for these details. Some are blogs. Some are just flimsy. [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/8/23/23313081/effective-altruism-billionaires-tax-inequality-dustin-moskovitz-sam-bankman-fried This Vox article] for example mentions Ohio State once, in passing, as the home school of one prominent academic. It doesn't link the school itself to EA as a defining trait that belongs in the lead of the article. If there is an inherent connection between EA and Ohio State, cite a reliable source which says that directly, not one that sort-of arguably implies it. Grayfell (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, as for the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/05/ai-apocalypse-college-students/ Washington Post article] which mentions schools, it's fine, but what does it actually say? It's not just about Effective Altruism. It's about AI doomerism specifically: {{tq|More recently, wealthy tech philanthropists have begun recruiting an army of elite college students to prioritize the fight against rogue AI over other threats.}} It also mentions Bankman-Fried, which you removed from the lead. To cite a source like this, you need to summarize what it says. To merely use it to name-drop a bunch of schools is squandering the source and adding noise instead of signal. Grayfell (talk) 06:15, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Would it be alright if I or you restored everything except for the full list of universities (fair enough, I can see how that's subjective) and simply listing in the lead that it is "popular among elite universities"? That seems fair and balanced. The Washington Post lists Harvard, Georgia Tech, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, New York University, and UC Berkeley as hubs for EA-influenced AI safety. Oxford and Cambridge are also obviously notable as well. I added Ohio State University because it's listed as the largest EA group in the United States along with Wisconsin and Harvard (which were already listed). If we're going to be more strict we should imo at least mention Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Columbia, Stanford, Cal Tech, and UC Berkeley. I don't care particularly one way or the other though.

:::The criticism of Bankman-Fried is real but only in the sense of the movement being tied to billionaires. The lead already seemed unbalanced towards criticism v. praise that I'm not sure is justified. (Even in the version I edited it to.) It just seems like an infodump of controversy. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Does [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_altruism&oldid=1293184289 this work]? I'm sure you can further improve it but it clearly seems better. FavourNSpice (talk) 06:39, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

::::It's often easier to evaluate these changes as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Effective_altruism&diff=prev&oldid=1293184289 "diffs"].

::::The lead already says "Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities..." (Honestly, I don't think this is good wording, but to avoid edit warring I'm going to wait a bit before even thinking about changing that.)

::::I think this proposal includes some more positive changes, but there are still vagueness and neutrality issues with the wording. "Elite" is at least theoretically falsifiable, but "prestigious" is just a peacock-word. Likewise, how much influence quantifies as "significant" influence, and who is doing the measuring? How deep is "deeply"? The use of these terms in this way is a subtle form of editorializing. Wikipedia articles should be written in a formal tone, so what sounds conversational isn't always appropriate. Unfortunately, this article and its neighbors already have a lot of WP:TONE issues. A lot. I have my theories as to why, but regardless, it is better not to add to the problem.

::::The sentence 'The 2020s saw the Effective Altruist community grow more prominent, and larger, but also more divided and less cohesive.' is interesting (and I don't disagree), but it's way, way too ambiguous for the lead of the article. This description is either so vague it's kind of meaningless, or it's a subjective claim. I'm not really sold that the included quote from the Vox source directly supports this summary, either (but I do appreciate the inclusion of a quote).

::::Like it or not, most reliable sources which give an overview of EA mention the controversies, specifically Bankman-Fried. This includes both the Vox article and the Washington Post article you've cited. I agree that this should be explained better, but tucking this away into a clause of a sentence that also mentions how it has been "praised" isn't going to work. If nothing else, disinterested readers are likely to view this as false balance. If they read sources which mention Bankman-Fried, or Nick Bostrom's view on race and IQ, or anything at all about Musk's involvement, and then check Wikipedia and only see some bland waffle about 'perceived elitism' in the lead, they will understandably be annoyed with Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{u|Grayfell}}'s judgment in this discussion looks pretty good to me. {{u|FavourNSpice}} is making some rookie editor mistakes. Regarding the sentence that {{u|Grayfell}} mentioned above and that begins "Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities..." and currently says in full:

::::::{{tq|Effective altruism has strong ties to the elite universities in the United States and Britain, and Silicon Valley has become a key centre for the "longtermist" submovement, with a tight subculture there.{{cite news |last=Tiku |first=Nitasha |date=2022-11-17 |title=The do-gooder movement that shielded Sam Bankman-Fried from scrutiny |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/11/17/effective-altruism-sam-bankman-fried-ftx-crypto/ |access-date=2022-11-25 |newspaper=The Washington Post |language=en-US}}}}

:::::The ancestor of this sentence was added in this November 2023 edit, where it said (notice that "ties" was not modified by "strong" in the first version):

::::::{{tq|With approximately 7,000 adherents and ties to the elite schools in the United States and Britain, effective altruism has strongly become associated with Silicon Valley and the technology industry.}}

:::::The author of the sentence added "strong" to "ties" in this edit a few hours later. Apparently she liked the word "strong", as the sentence now had two instances of it. In this edit a month later, I noticed the two instances of "strong" in the same sentence and removed one of them but in retrospect should have removed both. Biogeographist (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::I will also point out that there is a nice list of EA-affiliated organizations in the {{tl|Effective altruism}} template. That template section basically serves the function that {{u|FavourNSpice}} says is missing from the article. I'm not sure that such an index needs to be duplicated in the article. Biogeographist (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's fair. I'll reinstate the non-objectionable parts. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:08, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Concern about AI safety, animal welfare (veganism/vegetarianism), and suffering are also relatively mainstream positions of both academic philosophers and scientists as well as the general public. I therefore disagree with Grayfell's argument that there's no (after looking through the rules on neutral point of view) case to positively cite aspects of EA by observers.

::::::At least not to the point of having criticism be 10x (or more) any praise of the movement. It's unbalanced. I do think information about Sam Bankman-Fried is others shouldn't be removed from the article but only in the sense that the "conservative political implications" aspect of the article mentions. The majority, but not all, of EA people are center-left liberals or social democrats who adhere to utilitarianism/consequentialism and liberal democratic political beliefs. FavourNSpice (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}