Talk:Effective altruism - Knowledge (XXG)

3859:

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.

3645:, and actually I didn't find it helpful on this issue, because in that chapter he's just arguing for obligations that could motivate people to pursue the goals of effective altruism, even though he notes at the beginning: "As defined by the leaders of the movement effective altruism is a project, rather than a set of normative commitments." So it's like he's saying that EA as prominently defined doesn't make claims about obligations, but he's going to argue for claims about obligations that would make one want to engage in the project of EA. In contrast, there are (at least) a couple of other publications by MacAskill that I mentioned above that explicitly address the issue of differences from utilitarianism. I added 3352:: Whose choices? Unpalatable to whom? And the subheading was at the beginning of the "Impartiality" section, and I'm not sure that the introduction to the section needs a subheading at all. For now, I moved all the relevant content under the "Criticism of impartiality" subheading. By the way, MacAskill's response to the Picasso scenario in 2015, recounted in that section, was obviously very utilitarian, but I'm not sure that he would give such a (dogmatically?) utilitarian response today about how effective altruists should behave in that scenario, judging based on how he has been more assiduous about differentiating EA from utilitarianism in more recent writings, e.g. in the 2698:, which I only considered an exception because MacAskill is notable enough to have his own Knowledge (XXG) article and because some relevant facts in it were not in other sources, although now that I look again at how the MacAskill post is cited, it seems to be overcited now—it's cited five times now instead of two times like it once was, and it's possible that the relevant facts are available in independent sources. So I am open to reconsidering whether that one should be an exception. As for Muehlhauser, I don't see how it's an exception: he's not notable enough to have his own Knowledge (XXG) article, and the facts that the source aims to verify are available in non- 4053:(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. 2837:

info to understanding the reaction by effective altruists, and I used the EA Forum as a reference. I understand the point that using a forum as evidence for general statements is not typically accepted, but the situation I highlighted seems different because, in order to explain how the community reacted to the situation, it is intuitive to reference the community's reaction. In this case, the context of the citation relies not on specific details of the reference, but on the mere existence of the discussion within it. I'm open to different opinions on this, and please try to see if that is reasonable.

3780:

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.

2725:"just another Internet forum". Many articles there effectively go through a peer review-like process — authors will create a draft which is shared with several others, then edits are made prior to publishing, and finally when articles are published, they are reviewed by the community as a whole using a karma system where the most dedicated EAs have far more of an ability to upvote posts than newer users, and these users have the ability to use a strong upvote to indicate even stronger approval, effectively vetting articles posted on the site. 2351:"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 2809:. I absolutely agree that "even a site like Stack Exchange or the EA Forum shouldn't automatically be considered an appropriate source, since the minimal standards are so low even though some posts are very good, and each post has to be evaluated individually," and I would also reject the claim that "the EA Forum is a reliable source in general therefore any given post is an appropriate source, especially when better sources are available for the same claim." We might be on the same page now. 3428:"Some gatherings and events are closed to outsiders" is also a typical feature of pretty much every social and professional group, ever. And in fact some cursory research into the subject suggests that many if not most EA events are open to the public. The citation for this criticism also does not back it up; the "cult-like" accusation in the Bloomburg article was levied at the rationalist community, not effective altruism. (While related, they are entirely separate movements. 200: 179: 2667:. The guideline says, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable." The Effective Altruism Forum is a place where users generate content, but it is where many of the most important essays in the field are published. It seems odd to remove the content for a topic because the leading thinkers on that topic choose to publish their works on a certain venue, and there is still much user-generated content, such as 453: 437: 421: 405: 21: 4004:. 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 4020:(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. 1935: 1870: 1760: 1739: 1676: 1613: 1572: 591: 570: 1811: 1648: 1403: 1297: 692: 1447:* 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. 671: 3421:"Using math to justify actions" describes every technical field, ever. If this criticism doesn't apply to economists, political scientists, wall street traders, engineers, climate scientists, actuaries, game theorists, etc. then it doesn't apply here either. Additionally, it's unclear how this is supposed to be a criticism, since surely "avoiding checking the math when deciding what to do" 502: 1850: 1785: 1714: 1694: 3398:

versus systemic change", "long-term future and global catastrophic risks", "founding effective organizations", and "other prominent people" sections, along with the last paragraph of the introduction. In fact, out of 28 total sections and subsections of the article, 13 of them contain criticism of Effective Altruism. This is a substantially larger fraction than in comparable articles.

481: 953: 148: 908: 868: 828: 788: 768: 307: 1029: 268: 2894:

an Internet forum. It's not just an issue of verifying the claim, but also of showing that the claim is noteworthy enough to mention. I'm not sure how to evaluate the latter without a secondary source. For now, I will restore your addition with the 2 alternative citations. But I'm not sure that I would defend it if someone else reverts it again.

1895: 1370: 1334: 1261: 1175: 2774:

that I do think individual posts like MacAskill's or Muehlhauser's could be considered acceptable sources with good supporting arguments, but what I don't accept is the argument that the EA Forum is a reliable source in general therefore any given post is an appropriate source, especially when better sources are available for the same claim.

317: 2879:, but isn't it associated with the reliability of the information? (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) In this case, the statement I presented in the lead section simply acknowledges that the community has discussed the issue, which it has as demonstrated by the citations, so there doesn't seem to be a problem of trustworthiness. 3841:

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

2836:

I'm new to Knowledge (XXG) as an editor, so I want to approach this with humility. I wish to discuss how I've added context to the sexual misconduct issue presented in the lead section: I explained that the community responded by discussing how to create a better environment, which I deem as relevant

2740:

Even though I concur with Biogeographist that forum posts shouldn't be used as sources on Knowledge (XXG), I don't consider the EA Forum to be anything like other Internet fora, and I think it is a shame that Knowledge (XXG) must use broadly scoped rules rather than allow independent exceptions where

2057:

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

1329:

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

2988:

does apply, meaning isolated EA Forum posts may arguably be considered reliable. If we honestly can't cite something except by going through the EA Forum, and if the EA Forum article is listed by Google Scholar, and if the author has other articles listed by Google Scholar, then I think there may be

2928:

I think it's definitely a worthwhile topic to cover, but the EA forum is simply not a reliable source. I read through all the conversations here, but there is no way in my mind that a self-described internet forum - no matter how respected or widely read/praised it may be - can be the sole source of

2773:

guideline is right that even a site like Stack Exchange or the EA Forum shouldn't automatically be considered an appropriate source, since the minimal standards are so low even though some posts are very good, and each post has to be evaluated individually. I hope it was clear in my previous comment

2736:

I think it is clear that the EA Forum is definitively not just another Internet forum. Posts that do well on the EA Forum are, in my opinion, more vetted than many publishers require, and, for many posts, it is closer to something peer-review-like than outsiders realize. If Knowledge (XXG) were able

2689:

said in their edit summary restoring the forum post (which was then removed again for good reasons that I will address in a moment) that removing it "would be like disallowing a famous Reddit post on the Reddit page because it's on Reddit." That's not true; this page is not about the EA Forum (which

2564:

The three major camps of EA correspond to schools of thought regarding which beings should be considered moral patients, or can be helped in practice. The global health and development camp largely focuses on human beings in the present, the animal welfare camp adds non-human animals in the present,

4178:

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

4019:

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

3779:

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

3775:

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

3486:

The general "their decisions seem kinda self-serving" criticism is reasonable, hence why I left in the section about the Wytham Abbey purchase. The ridiculous part is the implication that using math is somehow relevant to this. If they were self-serving in the same ways, but *avoided* using math to

3069:

Many take effective altruism to be synonymous with utilitarianism, the normative theory according to which an act is right if and only if it produces no less well‐being than any available act (see UTILITARIANISM; WELL‐BEING). This is a category mistake. Effective altruism is not utilitarianism, nor

2893:

OK, I didn't look at the other 2 posts you mentioned because the links to them were very easy to overlook. Those 2 seem to be more relevant since they show discussion, but it would be much better to have a good secondary-source summary of the discussion instead of just pointing to the discussion on

2728:

Not all posts go through this process. The EA Forum does allow independent publishing without prior review. And, unlike traditional peer review, the articles that fail still get published; they just get published with a low karma count and in less conspicuous places. But all posts do go through the

2200:

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

1765:

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

3614:

I removed this because I don't think it says anything clear and important about the difference between EA and utilitarianism. But I agree it would be useful to have a subsection about this under "Impartiality". I don't have time to rewrite this now but will try to get to it soon. If you have other

3467:

is as biased a misinterpretation of that sentence as anything that was in the criticism section. The point of that poorly written sentence (and it was even more poorly written before I edited it, although clearly it wasn't edited enough if it could be misinterpreted so badly) is the "being used to

2855:

you'd like to do something about sexual misconduct and don't know what to do..." (emphasis added) with caveats like "The post is not attempting to persuade anyone who isn't already convinced that it's worth taking action" and "It's just my take on what might be helpful to do", and with comments by

2257:

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

1515:

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

1144:

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

3668:

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

3258:

What the cited source says is: "Effective altruism has many enemies, and while there are certainly philosophical arguments against it, much of the opposition is not intellectual but visceral." I find it difficult to accept this as worthy of an encyclopedia article, because it's just a claim in an

3074:

of using evidence and reason to try to find out how to do the most good, and on this basis trying to do the most good Since effective altruism is a project rather than a normative claim, it is possible for one to both adopt this project as well as accept a nonwelfarist conception of the good (or

2874:

The article starts by citing two other articles written by members of the community discussing the issue, "Share the burden" (which had 51 comments) and "Things that can make EA a good place for women" (which had 30 comments). That was the reason I chose to cite this article rather than the other

2568:

We should add sources about the beliefs and disagreements of these schools of thought. For example, Ajeya Cotra's 80K interview on worldview diversification provides a metaphor of a "train to crazy town", which could be helpful for describing these disagreements. Open Philanthropy's blog posts on

4201:

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

3858:

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

3417:

and therefore exactly what we'd expect to see from a welcoming and inclusive movement. And the provided sources do not back up this claim; the Vox article only makes a vague insinuation that "linking EA to programmers will not do much to bring more people from diverse backgrounds into the fold",

3397:

Of course if there are noteworthy criticisms of the movement, then they should be mentioned, and indeed there are quite a few mentioned in the "controversies", "criticisms of impartiality", "notable publications and media", "criticisms of cause prioritization", "cost-effectiveness", "incremental

2788:

I don't mind the notion that the EA forum isn't a good source. In fact, I probably agree. But I do think that sometimes makes it *really hard* to explain useful facts about EA. Honestly, sometimes I try and add things here which are against the common EA narrative, but they are still removed for

1681:

Some of the sources, such as those from 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

1212:

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

3393:

As seen in the "criticism" section above on this talk page, the "criticism" section of the article appears to have been added not due to any particular criticism that was noteworthy enough to address, but simply because an editor felt that the article "needed" a criticism section, and then went

2705:

I don't accept that the EA Forum is a good source in general, so I can't accept restoring the Muehlhauser post on that basis. You have to view it in light of this article's long history of edits by EA enthusiasts who overcite sources like blogs and forums related to EA. (This has been discussed

2102:

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

1321:

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

3001:

Long-form Effective Altruism posts should be citable. They're much more similar to academic papers than to Reddit posts, often coming with their own citations and peer review. Papers published in scientific journals are also "user-edited", so clearly discretion is intended with regards to this

2514:

I think the tone should be more formal and encyclopedic overall, and more technical in some places. We shouldn't overwhelm the reader with EA jargon, but it's important to introduce at least the most important technical terms used by EA, to be concise and to respect the reader's intellect. For

2242:

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

3903:

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

2933:

as the establishing source. But as it was used in the article before I made edits, those sources essentially served to validate original research. Reading through forums and deciding to frame what was said there as a larger trend among the movement is as "original research" as it gets, imo.

3698:

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.

3565:"Duty of Beneficence: Most middle or upper class people in rich countries have a duty to make helping others a significant part of their lives.... those of us who are well off have a significant obligation to help others." MacAskill, Effective Altruism (Norton Introduction to Ethics), 2019. 2050:

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

1536:

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

3468:

justify self-serving spending" part, not the "math" part. There may be something worth salvaging there, but as I didn't add that sentence myself I'm not very motivated to try to fix it. I haven't critically examined the other objections above, which I hope are not as wrongheaded as the

2548:

Although the two are related, I think it's important to decouple effective altruism from utilitarianism as much as possible. We should avoid using terms like "well-being" and "reducing suffering" as synonyms for moral value unless they're used that way in the source. For example, the

1233:"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"??? 2737:

to make isolated exceptions to its rules, I would advocate for such an exception to certain parts of the EA Forum. But I do not believe Knowledge (XXG) should make such exceptions (that seems wholly untenable), and so the EA Forum is unfortunately not usable as a source here.

1529:

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

2929:

validation for the information that it was cited for in this case. If another editor were able to find a reliable, notable, secondary source that details the fact that there were conversations within the EA community about combatting sexual misconduct, then you could use

3758:, 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. 3394:

looking for criticisms to support it. This is an... odd approach to editing, to say the least. Many articles on Knowledge (XXG) about various philosophies and social movements do not include any particular "criticism" section, so there is no a-priori need for one here.

2129:

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

3505:

The best way to "balance" the article, in my view, would be to rewrite the language the PR-speak introduction which EA's posters wrote before the problems with the movement came to light. I'm not sure why so many (in effect) self-published sources are still being used

2914:"Propelled by the situation, members of the community discussed how to create an environment more capable of preventing and fighting sexual misconduct" and its references. I am noting the removal here, where the sentence and its references were previously discussed. 2576:

We should explain in greater detail why AI safety and biosecurity are considered top priorities by longtermists. Right now, there's only two sentences in the longtermism/GCRs section about this. As this is a dominant view in the EA movement, I think it deserves its

3556:"...your donation could give someone the equivalent of several years of healthy life. As the latter would clearly lead to more happiness in the world, utilitarianism commands you to do it......." MacAskill, Effective Altruism (Norton Introduction to Ethics), 2019. 1152:

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,

3259:

opinion column in a student newspaper and is unsupported by evidence. The author fails to provide examples of opposition that "is not intellectual but visceral". Perhaps there's a Knowledge (XXG) guideline that's relevant, but my memory fails me at the moment.

3969:

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

2589:

The "Founding effective organizations" section reads like a laundry list of EA orgs. We only need a few examples to illustrate how organizations can be founded on EA principles. We can also name meta-orgs like Charity Entrepreneurship, which incubates EA

1544:

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

2217:

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

4042:. 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. 1432:

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

3418:

which as the previous statistics show does not appear to be correct, and the Atlantic article simply claims the movement is non-diverse and then links to an EA forum post summarizing survey results that do not particularly back up that claim.

2367:

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

2572:

We should also explain why members of the global health and well-being (non-longtermist) camp continue to focus on near-term, easily measurable causes. There are sources where Alexander Berger and Elie Hassenfeld explain their thoughts on

2596:

Relatedly, we should be consistent about whether we weave criticism into the article as a whole or put it in a dedicated "Criticism" section. Since we've been trending towards weaving it into the article, this would be going all the

2720:

I agree with Biogeographist that forum posts are not considered appropriate sources on Knowledge (XXG), and so EA Forum posts shouldn't be cited. But I think the reason why many EAs are irked by this is because the EA Forum is

4071:

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.

1506:"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. 4016:, 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. 1959:"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. 2306:"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. 3204:

But it still seems to me that not everyone uses that term, and I would keep "sometimes". I really don't know how to prove the negative that it's not always used, besides quoting internet forums and other non-reliable

3002:

Knowledge (XXG) guideline. I agree that the Effective Altruism forum *looks* like a traditional internet forum, but what matters is the content and the process used to generate that content, not the aesthetics.

2386:

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..."

1322:

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.

3914:

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

2345:

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.

2117:"... 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? 4271: 2204:

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

1957:. 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: 2286:

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.

966: 2757:, those are important considerations. On further reflection, I agree that not all Internet forums are equal; those that consistently enforce a code of conduct and content guidelines and that have a good 2139:

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

653: 250: 4000:

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,

3739:, 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. 2073:

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

2506:

Rename the "Entrepreneurship" section to "Founding effective organizations", focusing more on organizations founded for the purpose of direct impact, and move the SBF to the earning to give section.

4008:, 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 4276: 2790: 2318:

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.

3944:

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.

1995:

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...

4331: 643: 3761:

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.

746: 2856:

only 3 people, is not exactly impressive evidence of noteworthy "conversations inside the community" that would be worth mentioning in this article, even leaving aside the problem that it's

4301: 4266: 2624:

I like your suggestions! I do think though that some of the details about longtermism should be incorporated in the longtermism article, which should then probably be excerpted here, e.g.

1976:

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.

3807:

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.

3221: 2980:, EA Forum posts might still fail in terms of citation counts (although articles with no citation counts may still count as a reliable source in some situations). They may also count as 2706:

several times in the talk page archives.) I imagine the EA Forum seems important to those who participate in it, but those of us who don't can see that it's just another Internet forum.

4346: 3801:

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.

736: 2338:

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

428: 282: 4336: 4286: 2565:

and the longtermist camp adds future generations. So I think the Cause priorities section belongs right after (or in) the Philosophy section as it's closely related to EA philosophy.

619: 2455:"Whether or not effective altruists should consider difficult-to-measure but potentially high-impact interventions such as institutional or structural change remains controversial." 1469:* 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. 3804:

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.

2224:

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.

3371: 2061:

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?

4351: 3965:

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

3783:

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.

3924:

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

3880:

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

3824:

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

712: 4306: 2648: 3374:. If MacAskill has somewhere explicitly responded to this discrepancy, it would be great to add a sentence about it to the relevant paragraph in this Knowledge (XXG) article. 2136:

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?

4326: 4236: 4040:

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

240: 1245:

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

1034: 338:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the

4291: 2243:

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?

1603: 1067: 598: 575: 32: 4341: 4296: 552: 2593:

I think it would be good to add a subsection about incremental vs. systemic change to the Approaches section. This could absorb what's left of the Criticism section.

460: 290: 216: 2671:, cited on Knowledge (XXG). I think this should be an exception to the "generally" rule-of-thumb. What do others think, ideally those with subject matter expertise? 699: 676: 4316: 4281: 2521: 542: 2459:

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:

1953:

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

1057: 3540:

Toby Ord has contrasted utilitarians as "number-crunching" with most effective altruists being "guided by conventional wisdom tempered by an eye to the numbers".

2054:

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?

375: 1840: 3401:

Many of those criticisms are reasonable and well-cited. In contrast, three out of the four criticisms in the standalone "criticisms" section are nonsensical.

4246: 4231: 365: 3439:

These criticisms are embarrassing. At best they fail a cursory check for basic logical validity, at worst they are actively deceptive. I have removed them.

4321: 2009:

I think all of the content in "Themes", particularly cause prio and cost-effectiveness, belong in the Philosophy section rather than the Practice section.

1670: 1607: 1599: 1488:

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!

518: 444: 286: 207: 184: 2070:

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?

412: 278: 1366:

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.

1116:

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.

3900:

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.

2520:

Others include people who don't exist yet as possible beneficiaries and try to promote the long-term well-being of humanity by, for example, reducing

2604:

We can also rename the "Philosophy" section to "Core principles", since the cause priorities/schools of thought section also counts as EA philosophy.

1591: 4256: 340: 4311: 3684:

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.

1039: 509: 486: 47: 4226: 3370:

I am not the only one who has noticed the discrepancy between MacAskill's response to the Picasso scenario and his later writings on EA: see

1992:

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

1665:, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or 2972:

fora. While this does strongly support that some articles on the EA Forum don't fall into the same category as other forum posts, this does

2493:

I have some miscellaneous ideas for restructuring and improving the article, although I don't have time to implement all of them right now.

1550: 42: 4241: 1666: 1538: 4045:

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

3410: 3075:

indeed to adopt multiple projects, some of which involve promoting welfarist good and some of which involve promoting nonwelfarist good).

2965: 2321:

I would also phrase it as something like "the promotion of global health and develeopment and animal welfare, and mitigating risks to .."

4261: 2396:

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

2179: 1595: 330: 273: 2794: 2296:, 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. 2214:"As the movement formed"? Why is the formation of the ideology so far into its history section? Also what defines it as a "movement"? 2126:"Some even lead a frugal lifestyle in order to donate more." - Again, vague. Who? How many is some? What typifies a frugal lifestyle? 1062: 38: 4144: 3105: 2309:"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 973: 969: 1940:

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

1688: 1145:

much time focusing on the actions of specific philanthropists and % dollar-growth, as opposed to a more general summary of concept.

2553:

emphasizes the plurality of views that can support longtermism. In the example sentence above, which cites this source, I changed

4251: 41:

at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be

3827:

Its short, succinct, neutral, and uses the section headings from the article to lead the viewer to understand what EA is about.

3615:

suggestions about such a section before I return, feel free to provide them here. I haven't yet read MacAskill's chapter in the

3720: 3511: 1254:

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

3842:

a philanthropical network; 3) the information at the end of the paragraph should be reinstated, even if in a briefer version.

3065:

An edit to the lead section that I reverted equated effective altruism with utilitarianism. This is not correct; for example:

159: 4143:

By the way, the quotation of the CEA definition that is endorsed by multiple organizations was chosen after discussion here:

1198:

Surely it should just list prominent members of the movement? And therefore should say Singer, MacAskill and Bankman-Fried,

2976:

necessarily mean that we may use EA Forum posts that are listed on Google Scholar as a proper reliable source. According to

2133:

What is the balance of Toby Ord's income? Does he donate a pound or a million pounds? Has the amount changed with inflation?

2099:, my apologies for the delay in responding to you, I've been v busy IRL this past week. I'll happily provide more comments. 1790:

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

3459:

I didn't write any of the content that was removed, although I edited it after it was added. In general, I agree that what

3442:(The accusation of hypocrisy for high spending and the purchase of Wytham Abbey actually makes sense, so I left it alone.) 1533:

I think that this article puts too much focus on philanthropic practice and not nearly enough on its philosophical backing.

3406: 3179:

is used repeatedly in this Knowledge (XXG) article, so it needs to be succinctly defined at the start to avoid confusion.

3175:. I have found many examples in other bibliographic databases as well over the past few years. More importantly, the term 2361:

You should probably mention veganism alongside factory farming, particularly given the emphasis on Singer in this article.

1463:* in impartiality section: removed a primary citation to Animal Charity Evaluators, and another from 80K about longtermism 1106: 814: 3627:, which were published around the same time. With all these sources (and perhaps others), we can write something better. 3422: 2327:

Don't italicise EA at the end of the lede, put it in inverted commas, 'effective altruism'. Should it be name, or phrase?

1844: 4013: 4009: 3832: 3812: 2289:

There's nothing overly challengeable in the lede, so I would move all citations to the body, bar that for the quotation.

2221:

Is "Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues" a book or a journal? Is it necessary to list every book on the topic here?

2201:

in what context? Has he been identified as advocating a philosophy that might be considered a proto-effective altruism?

1860: 1658: 1587: 3864:

I cant see a problem in this, only in the structure of 'as well as its interpretation', which could be better indeed.

3274:

Thanks. You are right. It's an interesting and probably a true point, but there are not enough good refs. to include.

2123:

The wording of "alleviate suffering through donations" implies that the act of donating directly alleviates suffering.

1085: 118: 103: 84: 20: 1832: 1359:"effective animal welfare altruists" is still in the article, but I can't find it in either of the two cited sources. 3161:‎Usage of "effective altruist" as a noun is not very common for most people pursuing the goals of effective altruism 3716: 3507: 2884: 2842: 1472:* in counterfactual reasoning section: remove primary source citation to 80K where there's already another citation 894: 3909:

using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible, and taking action on that basis

3669:

community. On the other hand, even an imprecise approximation may be considered relevant information for readers.

1836: 1754: 1630: 3201:

I definitely agree that it's sometimes used, and it seems I was wrong in thinking its usage is "not very common".

2479: 2186: 2178:

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

1203: 934: 603: 3213: 3209: 1750: 1733: 1081: 982: 4207: 4160: 4129: 4111: 4077: 4058: 4025: 3991: 3949: 3889: 3869: 3847: 3788: 3744: 3689: 3654: 3632: 3477: 3379: 3361: 3298: 3264: 3184: 3134: 3050: 2919: 2899: 2865: 2779: 2711: 2626:

We should explain in greater detail why AI safety and biosecurity are considered top priorities by longtermists

2538:

as possible beneficiaries and try to improve the moral value of the long-term future by, for example, reducing

2067:

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

1966: 2977: 2880: 2838: 2164:

This is great feedback and I'll be slowly addressing the points one by one over the coming weeks. Thank you!!

165: 4106:

issue and said that "The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.".

4151:

raised, at least the valid issues. As I said above, I don't think it's true that the CEA definition implies

3919: 3828: 3808: 3646: 3492: 3449: 3156: 3007: 2911: 1744:

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

1182:

for now, with the expectation of further improvements to the lede when i get to the detailed feedback later.

3429: 3171:(plural) as described is common enough in the published literature in general can be seen, for example, in 1708: 1704: 3776:

nothing to do with notability. This cannot be compared with my addition at the end of the first paragraph.

3576: 2993: 2745: 2690:

is what is analogous to Reddit), it's about effective altruism. I understand that there are exceptions to

2064:

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

2025:

I have no qualms with moving content that is in other parts of the article into the philosophy section :)

618:, on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 607: 4050: 2503:

Move the content in the cause neutrality section into the Impartiality and Cause prioritization sections.

2292:

That said, I personally amn't mad on the notion of opening the definition with a quote. It's not 'wrong'

1167:

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

3030: 854: 711:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

517:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

215:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4121: 4103: 2981: 2968:

for some searches. This is relatively unusual, as Google Scholar only very rarely returns results from

1907: 1864: 1805: 1520: 1434: 1961:

This may have been part of the trend in recent revisions to strip out as much philosophy as possible.

1171:

The bit about dollar growth has also been removed by someone else (thanks again!). Marking this point

4182:

it amounts to $ 3.2 billion, which is consistent with what is written in the Knowledge (XXG) article

3912: 3537:"commands" people to do good, whereas under EA some people have a "duty" or "obligation" to do good. 3090: 2475: 2182: 1199: 3986:

imply that, and I have never read anything in the EA literature that makes such a hyperbolic claim.

3321: 3228: 3150: 2180:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/5XeCA5gKbMakAskLy/effective-altruists-love-systemic-change

920: 880: 840: 800: 147: 4203: 4156: 4148: 4125: 4107: 4073: 4068: 4054: 4035: 4021: 3987: 3960: 3945: 3885: 3865: 3843: 3784: 3755: 3740: 3685: 3650: 3628: 3473: 3375: 3357: 3294: 3260: 3232: 3195: 3180: 3130: 3046: 2915: 2895: 2861: 2814: 2806: 2775: 2707: 2676: 2656: 2632: 2442: 2418:

The whole counterfactual reasoning section is too narrow in its focus on that one specific example.

2248: 2169: 2085: 2030: 2000: 1962: 1493: 1479: 1454: 1414: 1381: 1346: 1308: 1275: 1218: 1189: 847:

on 9 August 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see

3598: 1903: 1824: 927:

on 14 June 2017. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see

887:

on 18 July 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see

807:

on 27 June 2015. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see

4191: 3931: 3766: 3704: 3674: 3488: 3460: 3445: 3432: 3326: 3172: 3118: 3003: 2535: 2058:

again. What should be done to make it less "highly questionable"? Should parts of it be removed?

1135:

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

988: 924: 884: 844: 804: 212: 3972:

the vulgar EA talking point that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers

1619: 1554: 774: 1669:, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the 1641:

A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

4183: 3111: 3102: 2990: 2758: 2754: 2742: 2695: 2613: 2539: 2428: 2263: 2233: 2155: 2015: 1982: 1541:

or something similar would be a better fit; failing that, a list article would do the job too.

1121: 1100: 322: 3798: 2397: 2074: 1775: 1642: 4046: 3279: 3094: 2939: 1003: 984: 4186:. I don't have access to the book, perhaps it's inaccurate or phrased in a particular way? 3349: 2985: 2876: 2857: 2770: 2699: 2691: 2664: 2578: 4005: 3599:"Effective altruism was the favoured creed of Sam Bankman-Fried. Can it survive his fall?" 3414: 3409:, which is much better than most adjacent fields; for example it's about twice as many as 3982:

non-EA charities rely on such appeals, and the CEA definition of effective altruism does

3290: 3042: 2463: 1662: 1268:(but let me know if you intended this comment to apply to the rest of the paragraph, too) 952: 199: 178: 3534: 3022: 2810: 2766: 2762: 2686: 2672: 2628: 2438: 2244: 2165: 2096: 2081: 2026: 1996: 1782:

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

1489: 1475: 1450: 1410: 1377: 1342: 1304: 1271: 1214: 1185: 3164: 2550: 1466:* in cause prioritization section: removed some primary citations to 80K and Open Phil 452: 436: 420: 404: 4220: 4187: 3927: 3762: 3736: 3700: 3670: 3121: 2660: 1577:

The prose is, in places, decidedly not clear, nor particularly concise. Also, why is

1526:

The lede doesn't give a good introduction to the concept, nor to the article broadly.

615: 514: 2383:

Counter factual reasoning shouldnt be linked if it just goes to ten lines underneath

1394:

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

1158:

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

3098: 2609: 2437:

this is fantastic. i will start addressing feedback items one by one from the top.

2424: 2259: 2229: 2151: 2047: 2011: 1978: 1117: 1096: 611: 4099: 3529:

added the following text under the heading "EA differences from utilitarianism":

2500:

Move all of the "Themes" from the "Practice" section to the "Philosophy" section.

3526: 3345: 3275: 3247: 3227:

I'll leave it to you to consider if "sometimes" is an accurate characterization

2935: 2908: 2531: 1581:

in the opening sentence, when it's not used anywhere else? Is that even a thing?

3918:

Even though I prefer to keep the quote since it is notable and subtly phrased,

2733:

of newer users upvote it, or if a sufficient number of dedicated EAs upvote it.

2389:"disability-adjusted life years (DALY) reduced per dollar" Reduced or extended? 590: 569: 3217: 3070:

is it any other normative theory or claim. Instead, effective altruism is the

2208:

The Facebook Group is a meaningless metric. Anyone can found a facebook group.

1402: 1296: 986: 708: 335: 312: 3214:

https://www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism

3114: 2964:

News related to the above discussion: Earlier this month, Google Scholar has

2769:) are not the same as those that are just a free-for-all. Still, I think the 2402:"Since there is a high supply of candidates for such positions, however, ..." 1569:

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

4211: 4195: 4164: 4133: 4115: 4081: 4062: 4029: 3995: 3953: 3935: 3893: 3873: 3851: 3836: 3816: 3792: 3770: 3748: 3724: 3708: 3693: 3678: 3658: 3636: 3515: 3496: 3481: 3453: 3383: 3365: 3302: 3283: 3268: 3236: 3188: 3138: 3054: 3018: 3011: 2996: 2943: 2923: 2903: 2888: 2869: 2846: 2818: 2798: 2783: 2748: 2715: 2680: 2636: 2618: 2483: 2446: 2432: 2267: 2252: 2237: 2190: 2173: 2159: 2089: 2034: 2020: 2004: 1987: 1970: 1911: 1497: 1483: 1458: 1418: 1385: 1350: 1312: 1279: 1222: 1207: 1193: 1125: 1110: 4180: 2103:

article. That not withstanding, my issues with this section are as follows:

1409:

will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later.

1303:

will address this when I get to the detailed feedback on this point later.

1088:. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. 501: 480: 3017:

When you say "Effective Altruism posts" I assume you mean EA Forum posts.

1902:

I believe I have added an alt caption to the only picture on the article.

691: 670: 4124:

essay; that issue mentioned in 2022 seems to have been largely resolved.

3435:, and there are significant philosophical disagreements between the two.) 3348:

recently added. It doesn't strike me as a good summary because it's very

3025:. It says nothing about a scholarly peer review process that I can find. 3082: 703:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to 3224:

has articles using "effective altruism" but not "effective altruist(s)"

3167:

evidence for that claim, but ample evidence that the usage of the term

2875:

two. If that's the problem, I could cite those two. You also mentioned

2668: 1804:

It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

704: 334:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to 211:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relevant to 4153:

that everyone but them are emotional, even passional decision makers

3487:

justify those decisions, would that be better? Doesn't seem like it.

3465:"Using math to justify actions" describes every technical field, ever 3243:"Such criticism has been described as not intellectual, but visceral" 3041:

the problem. EA Forum posts, long-form or not, are not automatically

2729:

karma system, so articles can only get a high upvote count if either

2651:

is a very important essay in the field of effective altruism. It was

2415:

The last line of counterfactual reasoning isnt sufficiently explained

3254:

Such criticism has been described as not intellectual, but visceral.

306: 267: 2258:

different theorists different opinions on / interpretations of it.

4155:

as JoaquimCebuano claimed, so I don't think that's a valid issue.

4145:

Talk:Effective altruism/Archive 2#Definition of Effective Altruism

3649:

that may satisfactorily address the issue based on those sources.

2371:

What's an "evaluate cause"? Or should it say that they prioritize

2051:

clarifications to guide us as we continue to improve the article.

2989:

a good argument for citing the EA Forum in that specific case. —

2364:

Make an explicit link between cause neutrality and impartiality.

2342:

improved from when I faield the review but it is still lacking.

3940:

Something widely used is not necessarily defining, this quote

3344:

I removed the "EA choices sometimes unpalatable" heading that

3027:

Papers published in scientific journals are also "user-edited"

2984:, which makes them generally unsuitable — but, in some cases, 989: 946: 902: 862: 822: 782: 762: 141: 2077:

by folding it into where I thought it was the most relevant.

2114:"Many effective altruists..." - too vague. Who, or how many? 1288:

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

451: 435: 419: 403: 2649:

Meuhlhauser, 2013, "Four Focus Areas of Effective Altruism"

2348:

Why is Christianity specified? Is it many, or Christianity?

1444:* Removed a citation about Good Ventures (primary source). 4147:. But I think it is important to address the issues that 2586:

We should rename the "Practice" section to "Approaches".

4272:

High-importance social and political philosophy articles

2805:

I appreciate your clarification and further reflection,

2355:

Christian, who may argue it is the most good one can do.

4175: 3198:

thank you so much for all your work on Knowledge (XXG)!

2694:

and I've advocated for one exception myself: a post by

2652: 2474:- the uptake of antimalarials and deworming worldwide. 2282:

Is it a social movement? As in, is it labelled such by

2211:

Why list all of Singer's books? They don't belong here.

929: 915: 889: 875: 849: 835: 809: 795: 96: 77: 2464:

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

628:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject International development

1539:

Category:Charities which practice effective altruism

721:

Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Finance & Investment

602:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 513:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 51:

of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

4277:

Social and political philosophy task force articles

3619:that is cited, but I have read his chapters in the 386: 4332:High-importance International development articles 4202:notability. I will try to search something today. 3911:" is widely used by EA organizations to define EA. 4347:Low-importance Finance & Investment articles 4302:High-importance Contemporary philosophy articles 4267:B-Class social and political philosophy articles 3081:Pummer, Theron; MacAskill, William (June 2020). 2569:worldview diversification could also be helpful. 2496:I've already implemented the following changes: 2412:Knowledge (XXG) does not advocate this position! 3856: 3577:"Philosophical critiques of effective altruism" 3250:added the following sentence, which I removed: 3067: 2741:it would make sense, like with the EA Forum. — 2522:risks to civilization, humans, and planet Earth 1955:not nearly enough on its philosophical backing 4337:WikiProject International development articles 4287:High-importance philosophy of science articles 4051:"Effective altruism as a tower of assumptions" 3289:Now my brain is more awake and I realize that 3173:the Google Scholar search results for the term 2380:"into the scale" into is the wrong preposition 2120:"Some believe..." - Same problem, who is some? 631:Template:WikiProject International development 225:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Effective Altruism 4352:WikiProject Finance & Investment articles 3531: 2468:- shifting philanthropy to focus on outcomes 997:This page has archives. Sections older than 724:Template:WikiProject Finance & Investment 8: 3037:of the EA Forum is the problem! The process 344:about philosophy content on Knowledge (XXG). 4307:Contemporary philosophy task force articles 3884:, terribly vague to be honest, and biased. 3415:the base rate among the American population 3218:https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ 2515:example, I changed the following sentence: 1753:without going into unnecessary detail (see 933:; for the discussion at that location, see 893:; for the discussion at that location, see 853:; for the discussion at that location, see 813:; for the discussion at that location, see 4327:B-Class International development articles 4237:Top-importance Effective Altruism articles 3340:Heading "EA choices sometimes unpalatable" 1017: 665: 564: 475: 383: 262: 173: 56: 15: 4342:B-Class Finance & Investment articles 4292:Philosophy of science task force articles 4179:sum all the donations in the spreadsheet, 3522:"Differences from utilitarianism" section 527:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Animal rights 4297:B-Class Contemporary philosophy articles 3625:Effective Altruism: Philosophical Issues 3549: 3312: 2377:Neglectedness could be better explained 1048: 1020: 667: 566: 477: 264: 228:Template:WikiProject Effective Altruism 175: 145: 4317:High-importance Animal rights articles 4282:B-Class philosophy of science articles 4152: 4039: 4002:The Good it Promises, The Harm it Does 3971: 3641:OK, I read MacAskill's chapter in the 3469: 3464: 3160: 3034: 3026: 2791:2A02:C7C:393C:4200:759F:E3BA:828B:FA24 2625: 2558: 2554: 2529: 2519: 2471:- givedirectly pushing cash transfers 1958: 1954: 1253: 1244: 1166: 1157: 1007:when more than 5 sections are present. 350:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Philosophy 3293:is basically the relevant guideline. 2966:started to return some EA Forum posts 2559:"moral value of the long-term future" 1330:excerpted that article here. Marking 599:WikiProject International development 33:Philosophy and religion good articles 7: 3664:Approximate number of active members 3621:International Encyclopedia of Ethics 3463:removed was weak, but the objection 3354:International Encyclopedia of Ethics 3087:International Encyclopedia of Ethics 2829:Citing EA Forum on sexual misconduct 2462:- pandemic preparedness candidates. 700:WikiProject Finance & Investment 697:This article is within the scope of 596:This article is within the scope of 507:This article is within the scope of 328:This article is within the scope of 205:This article is within the scope of 4247:High-importance Philosophy articles 4232:B-Class Effective Altruism articles 4120:I'm not sure why you mentioned the 3922:'s opening sentence is also good: " 3389:Trimming biased "criticism" section 3061:Effective altruism ≠ utilitarianism 3031:they are edited by selected experts 1822:Is it illustrated, if possible, by 1240:Here's another crack at it. Before: 4322:WikiProject Animal rights articles 3157:In your edit summary for this edit 2555:"long-term well-being of humanity" 634:International development articles 530:Template:WikiProject Animal rights 14: 3575:McMahan, J. (December 30, 2016). 3222:this Google Scholar search result 3220:don't use the term, also I think 3210:https://www.effectivealtruism.org 2358:Avoid single-sentence paragraphs. 2303:should be bolded, not in italics. 1001:may be automatically archived by 727:Finance & Investment articles 3021:shows that it is just a typical 3019:The "About" page of the EA Forum 1933: 1893: 1868: 1848: 1809: 1783: 1758: 1737: 1712: 1692: 1674: 1646: 1611: 1570: 1401: 1368: 1332: 1295: 1259: 1173: 951: 906: 866: 826: 786: 766: 690: 669: 589: 568: 500: 479: 315: 305: 266: 198: 177: 146: 19: 4257:High-importance ethics articles 3470:"Using math to justify actions" 2551:80K introduction to longtermism 1849: 1784: 1713: 1693: 741:This article has been rated as 648:This article has been rated as 547:This article has been rated as 429:Social and political philosophy 370:This article has been rated as 353:Template:WikiProject Philosophy 245:This article has been rated as 4312:B-Class Animal rights articles 3322:"The Bent: Effective altruism" 3320:Liu, Adrian (April 11, 2019). 3099:10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee883 3033:. And nobody is claiming that 2637:19:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 2619:16:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2447:19:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 2433:17:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2268:16:28, 23 September 2022 (UTC) 2253:18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2238:11:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2174:18:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC) 2160:11:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC) 2090:07:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2035:07:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2021:06:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 2005:06:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 1988:06:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC) 1671:scientific citation guidelines 1280:19:59, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 1194:19:51, 24 September 2022 (UTC) 773:This article contains content 208:WikiProject Effective Altruism 164:It is of interest to multiple 37:nominee, but did not meet the 1: 4014:mentioned in UN related sites 3643:Norton Introduction to Ethics 3637:02:55, 31 December 2023 (UTC) 3617:Norton Introduction to Ethics 3482:17:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 3454:06:49, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 3411:among Knowledge (XXG) editors 3384:22:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC) 3366:18:31, 24 December 2023 (UTC) 3303:16:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 3284:09:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 3269:03:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) 3189:01:47, 30 November 2023 (UTC) 3139:22:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC) 3085:. In LaFollette, Hugh (ed.). 3055:16:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 3012:05:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC) 2997:15:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC) 2904:03:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC) 2889:21:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) 2870:12:34, 25 December 2023 (UTC) 2847:05:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC) 2819:14:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC) 2334:What is lacking in philosophy 1841:valid non-free use rationales 715:and see a list of open tasks. 622:and see a list of open tasks. 521:and see a list of open tasks. 219:and see a list of open tasks. 4227:Former good article nominees 4098:You should note that in the 3715:I went ahead and removed it. 3497:04:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC) 3433:do not identify as the other 3372:this comment in the EA Forum 3237:10:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC) 3163:. I don't know what is your 3155:Welcome to Knowledge (XXG)! 2799:09:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC) 2784:15:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC) 2749:20:11, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 2716:16:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 2681:12:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 1934: 1912:22:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC) 1875:The images lack alt captions 1869: 1810: 1759: 1738: 1675: 1647: 1612: 1571: 1498:23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC) 1484:23:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC) 1459:23:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC) 1419:05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 1386:05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 1351:05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 1313:05:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 1223:04:32, 7 November 2022 (UTC) 4242:B-Class Philosophy articles 4100:last review of this article 3659:20:57, 1 January 2024 (UTC) 3407:composed of about 30% women 2484:17:28, 5 October 2022 (UTC) 2191:17:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC) 1971:20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC) 1427:Unresolved issues from GA 2 1208:17:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC) 1139:Unresolved issues from GA 1 1126:09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC) 1111:09:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC) 1086:Talk:Effective altruism/GA3 231:Effective Altruism articles 135:Former good article nominee 4368: 4262:Ethics task force articles 4212:22:53, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 4196:18:49, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 4165:18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 4134:18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 4116:04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 4082:19:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC) 4063:23:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 4030:22:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 3996:18:17, 3 August 2024 (UTC) 3954:15:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3936:06:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3894:04:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3874:04:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3852:04:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3837:04:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3817:04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3793:04:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3771:03:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3749:02:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC) 3413:. 76% are white, which is 3144:Effective altruists (term) 2960:EA Forum in Google Scholar 2944:15:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 2924:15:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC) 1643:the layout style guideline 1131:Review of previous reviews 747:project's importance scale 606:, including such areas as 553:project's importance scale 376:project's importance scale 45:. Editors may also seek a 4102:the reviewer pointed the 4034:Thanks for the response, 3208:E.g. It seems to me that 2851:An EA Forum post titled " 2647:My understanding is that 1516:much missing/wrong here. 781: 740: 685: 647: 625:International development 604:international development 584: 576:International development 546: 510:WikiProject Animal rights 495: 459: 443: 427: 411: 382: 369: 300: 244: 193: 172: 132: 59: 55: 3725:00:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC) 3709:23:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC) 3694:20:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC) 3679:22:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 2765:(which is technically a 2392:The second paragraph of 1586:B. It complies with the 796:High impact philanthropy 718:Finance & Investment 677:Finance & Investment 4252:B-Class ethics articles 3647:a sentence in this edit 3516:01:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC) 3089:. Hoboken, New Jersey: 2643:Citing Muehlhauser 2013 2530:Those who subscribe to 2324:Wikilink "impartiality" 1863:to the topic, and have 1766:about a facebook group. 1667:likely to be challenged 1511:My own general comments 461:Contemporary philosophy 387:Associated task forces: 4010:discussed in EA forums 3861: 3581:Philosophers' Magazine 3542: 3128: 608:appropriate technology 533:Animal rights articles 456: 440: 424: 408: 331:WikiProject Philosophy 154:This article is rated 3717:Essence of nightshade 3508:Essence of nightshade 3091:John Wiley & Sons 2489:Ideas for improvement 1727:broad in its coverage 913:The contents of the 876:Room for more funding 873:The contents of the 833:The contents of the 793:The contents of the 455: 445:Philosophy of science 439: 423: 407: 158:on Knowledge (XXG)'s 39:good article criteria 3083:"Effective altruism" 2912:removed the sentence 1808:or content dispute: 1751:focused on the topic 1732:A. It addresses the 1705:copyright violations 1689:no original research 1636:no original research 1523:is a big issue here. 1162:to be more specific: 916:Cause prioritization 283:Social and political 119:Good article nominee 104:Good article nominee 85:Good article nominee 4176:attempted to delete 3974:is not true. It is 3587:– via ora.ox.ac.uk. 3472:misinterpretation. 3177:effective altruists 3169:effective altruists 3029:. No, they're not; 2881:Pedro Araújo Writes 2839:Pedro Araújo Writes 2761:like, for example, 2315:an open-ended term. 2301:effective altruists 356:Philosophy articles 4012:and has also been 3920:Bluethricecreamman 3829:Bluethricecreamman 3809:Bluethricecreamman 3430:Most people in one 3327:The Stanford Daily 2536:future generations 2510:General feedback: 2394:Cost-effectiveness 1703:D. It contains no 1608:list incorporation 925:Effective altruism 885:Effective altruism 845:Effective altruism 805:Effective altruism 457: 441: 425: 409: 341:general discussion 222:Effective Altruism 213:effective altruism 185:Effective Altruism 160:content assessment 60:Article milestones 27:Effective altruism 4184:Open Philanthropy 2759:reputation system 2696:William MacAskill 2655:from the page by 2540:existential risks 2408:"it makes sense" 2373:evaluating causes 1865:suitable captions 1843:are provided for 1659:in-line citations 1213:report back here 1076: 1075: 1011: 1010: 945: 944: 941: 940: 901: 900: 861: 860: 821: 820: 777:from other pages. 761: 760: 757: 756: 753: 752: 664: 663: 660: 659: 563: 562: 559: 558: 474: 473: 470: 469: 466: 465: 323:Philosophy portal 261: 260: 257: 256: 140: 139: 128: 127: 4359: 3964: 3607: 3606: 3595: 3589: 3588: 3572: 3566: 3563: 3557: 3554: 3533:Some argue that 3332: 3331: 3317: 3154: 3126: 3125: 3043:reliable sources 2789:lacking sources 2653:recently removed 2617: 2561:to reflect this. 2423:More to follow. 2019: 1986: 1937: 1936: 1901: 1897: 1896: 1872: 1871: 1852: 1851: 1845:non-free content 1837:copyright status 1813: 1812: 1787: 1786: 1762: 1761: 1741: 1740: 1716: 1715: 1696: 1695: 1678: 1677: 1663:reliable sources 1650: 1649: 1615: 1614: 1574: 1573: 1405: 1376: 1372: 1371: 1340: 1336: 1335: 1299: 1267: 1263: 1262: 1181: 1177: 1176: 1030:Copyvio detector 1018: 1006: 990: 955: 947: 932: 910: 909: 903: 892: 870: 869: 863: 852: 836:Effective giving 830: 829: 823: 812: 790: 789: 783: 770: 769: 763: 729: 728: 725: 722: 719: 694: 687: 686: 681: 673: 666: 654:importance scale 636: 635: 632: 629: 626: 593: 586: 585: 580: 572: 565: 535: 534: 531: 528: 525: 504: 497: 496: 491: 483: 476: 394: 384: 358: 357: 354: 351: 348: 325: 320: 319: 318: 309: 302: 301: 296: 293: 270: 263: 251:importance scale 233: 232: 229: 226: 223: 202: 195: 194: 189: 181: 174: 157: 151: 150: 142: 133:Current status: 99: 80: 57: 23: 16: 4367: 4366: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4358: 4357: 4356: 4217: 4216: 4172: 4047:Scott Alexander 4006:humanitarianism 3958: 3733: 3666: 3612: 3611: 3610: 3597: 3596: 3592: 3574: 3573: 3569: 3564: 3560: 3555: 3551: 3524: 3391: 3356:article on EA. 3342: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3245: 3148: 3146: 3127: 3108: 3080: 3079: 3063: 2962: 2831: 2767:Q&A website 2645: 2608: 2491: 2476:Nathan PM Young 2457: 2183:Nathan PM Young 2010: 1977: 1951: 1894: 1892: 1687:C. It contains 1590:guidelines for 1588:manual of style 1513: 1429: 1369: 1367: 1333: 1331: 1260: 1258: 1200:Nathan PM Young 1174: 1172: 1141: 1133: 1080:This review is 1072: 1044: 1016: 1002: 991: 985: 960: 928: 907: 888: 867: 848: 827: 808: 787: 767: 726: 723: 720: 717: 716: 679: 650:High-importance 633: 630: 627: 624: 623: 579:High‑importance 578: 549:High-importance 532: 529: 526: 523: 522: 490:High‑importance 489: 392: 372:High-importance 355: 352: 349: 346: 345: 321: 316: 314: 295:High‑importance 294: 276: 230: 227: 224: 221: 220: 187: 155: 114:August 23, 2022 95: 76: 12: 11: 5: 4365: 4363: 4355: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4339: 4334: 4329: 4324: 4319: 4314: 4309: 4304: 4299: 4294: 4289: 4284: 4279: 4274: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4254: 4249: 4244: 4239: 4234: 4229: 4219: 4218: 4215: 4214: 4204:JoaquimCebuano 4171: 4170:Amount donated 4168: 4157:Biogeographist 4149:JoaquimCebuano 4141: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4137: 4136: 4126:Biogeographist 4108:JoaquimCebuano 4096: 4095: 4094: 4093: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4089: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4084: 4074:JoaquimCebuano 4069:Biogeographist 4055:Biogeographist 4043: 4036:JoaquimCebuano 4022:JoaquimCebuano 4017: 3988:Biogeographist 3985: 3981: 3977: 3968: 3961:JoaquimCebuano 3946:JoaquimCebuano 3916: 3905: 3901: 3898: 3897: 3896: 3886:JoaquimCebuano 3878: 3877: 3876: 3866:JoaquimCebuano 3862: 3854: 3844:JoaquimCebuano 3825: 3822: 3805: 3802: 3785:JoaquimCebuano 3781: 3777: 3759: 3756:JoaquimCebuano 3741:JoaquimCebuano 3732: 3729: 3728: 3727: 3713: 3712: 3711: 3686:Biogeographist 3665: 3662: 3651:Biogeographist 3629:Biogeographist 3609: 3608: 3590: 3567: 3558: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3535:utilitarianism 3523: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3502: 3501: 3500: 3499: 3474:Biogeographist 3437: 3436: 3426: 3419: 3390: 3387: 3376:Biogeographist 3358:Biogeographist 3341: 3338: 3334: 3333: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3295:Biogeographist 3287: 3286: 3261:Biogeographist 3256: 3255: 3244: 3241: 3240: 3239: 3225: 3206: 3202: 3199: 3196:Biogeographist 3181:Biogeographist 3178: 3170: 3145: 3142: 3131:Biogeographist 3106: 3077: 3073: 3062: 3059: 3058: 3057: 3047:Biogeographist 3040: 3035:the aesthetics 3023:Internet forum 2978:WP:SCHOLARSHIP 2961: 2958: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2953: 2952: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2916:Biogeographist 2906: 2896:Biogeographist 2862:Biogeographist 2830: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2821: 2807:Biogeographist 2803: 2802: 2801: 2776:Biogeographist 2763:Stack Exchange 2738: 2734: 2726: 2708:Biogeographist 2703: 2665:Internet Forum 2657:Biogeographist 2644: 2641: 2640: 2639: 2606: 2605: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2598: 2591: 2584: 2583: 2582: 2574: 2570: 2562: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2526: 2508: 2507: 2504: 2501: 2490: 2487: 2456: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2421: 2420: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2403: 2400: 2390: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2378: 2375: 2369: 2365: 2362: 2359: 2356: 2349: 2346: 2343: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2325: 2322: 2319: 2316: 2307: 2304: 2297: 2290: 2287: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2270: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2222: 2219: 2215: 2212: 2209: 2206: 2202: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2176: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2143: 2142: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2124: 2121: 2118: 2115: 2105: 2104: 2080:Thanks again! 2044: 2043: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2037: 1993: 1963:Biogeographist 1950: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1932:Pass or Fail: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1877: 1876: 1859:B. Images are 1857: 1856: 1855: 1831:A. Images are 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1767: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1736:of the topic: 1723: 1722: 1721: 1720: 1719: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1600:words to watch 1584: 1583: 1582: 1547: 1546: 1542: 1534: 1531: 1527: 1524: 1512: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1486: 1473: 1470: 1467: 1464: 1461: 1448: 1445: 1439: 1438: 1428: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1396: 1395: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1388: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1324: 1323: 1318: 1317: 1316: 1315: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1282: 1269: 1256: 1250: 1247: 1241: 1235: 1234: 1230: 1229: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1196: 1183: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1154: 1147: 1146: 1140: 1137: 1132: 1129: 1115: 1091: 1090: 1074: 1073: 1071: 1070: 1065: 1060: 1054: 1051: 1050: 1046: 1045: 1043: 1042: 1040:External links 1037: 1032: 1026: 1023: 1022: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1008: 996: 993: 992: 987: 983: 981: 978: 977: 962: 961: 956: 950: 943: 942: 939: 938: 911: 899: 898: 871: 859: 858: 831: 819: 818: 791: 779: 778: 771: 759: 758: 755: 754: 751: 750: 743:Low-importance 739: 733: 732: 730: 713:the discussion 695: 683: 682: 680:Low‑importance 674: 662: 661: 658: 657: 646: 640: 639: 637: 620:the discussion 594: 582: 581: 573: 561: 560: 557: 556: 545: 539: 538: 536: 519:the discussion 505: 493: 492: 484: 472: 471: 468: 467: 464: 463: 458: 448: 447: 442: 432: 431: 426: 416: 415: 410: 400: 399: 397: 395: 389: 388: 380: 379: 368: 362: 361: 359: 327: 326: 310: 298: 297: 271: 259: 258: 255: 254: 247:Top-importance 243: 237: 236: 234: 217:the discussion 203: 191: 190: 188:Top‑importance 182: 170: 169: 163: 152: 138: 137: 130: 129: 126: 125: 122: 115: 111: 110: 107: 100: 97:March 30, 2022 92: 91: 88: 81: 78:March 30, 2020 73: 72: 69: 66: 62: 61: 53: 52: 24: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4364: 4353: 4350: 4348: 4345: 4343: 4340: 4338: 4335: 4333: 4330: 4328: 4325: 4323: 4320: 4318: 4315: 4313: 4310: 4308: 4305: 4303: 4300: 4298: 4295: 4293: 4290: 4288: 4285: 4283: 4280: 4278: 4275: 4273: 4270: 4268: 4265: 4263: 4260: 4258: 4255: 4253: 4250: 4248: 4245: 4243: 4240: 4238: 4235: 4233: 4230: 4228: 4225: 4224: 4222: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4200: 4199: 4198: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4185: 4181: 4177: 4169: 4167: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4150: 4146: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4123: 4119: 4118: 4117: 4113: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4083: 4079: 4075: 4070: 4066: 4065: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4049:'s blog post 4048: 4044: 4041: 4037: 4033: 4032: 4031: 4027: 4023: 4018: 4015: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3998: 3997: 3993: 3989: 3983: 3979: 3975: 3973: 3966: 3962: 3957: 3956: 3955: 3951: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3938: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3917: 3913: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3887: 3883: 3879: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3860: 3855: 3853: 3849: 3845: 3840: 3839: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3826: 3823: 3820: 3819: 3818: 3814: 3810: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3782: 3778: 3774: 3773: 3772: 3768: 3764: 3760: 3757: 3753: 3752: 3751: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3738: 3730: 3726: 3722: 3718: 3714: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3697: 3696: 3695: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3663: 3661: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3644: 3639: 3638: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3618: 3604: 3600: 3594: 3591: 3586: 3582: 3578: 3571: 3568: 3562: 3559: 3553: 3550: 3546: 3541: 3538: 3536: 3530: 3528: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3509: 3504: 3503: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3489:KingSupernova 3485: 3484: 3483: 3479: 3475: 3471: 3466: 3462: 3461:KingSupernova 3458: 3457: 3456: 3455: 3451: 3447: 3446:KingSupernova 3443: 3440: 3434: 3431: 3427: 3424: 3420: 3416: 3412: 3408: 3404: 3403: 3402: 3399: 3395: 3388: 3386: 3385: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3368: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3347: 3339: 3329: 3328: 3323: 3316: 3313: 3309: 3305: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3266: 3262: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3249: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3223: 3219: 3215: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3200: 3197: 3193: 3192: 3191: 3190: 3186: 3182: 3176: 3174: 3168: 3166: 3162: 3159:, you wrote: 3158: 3152: 3143: 3141: 3140: 3136: 3132: 3123: 3120: 3116: 3113: 3109: 3107:9781444367072 3104: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3088: 3084: 3076: 3071: 3066: 3060: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3044: 3038: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3009: 3005: 3004:KingSupernova 2999: 2998: 2995: 2992: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2971: 2967: 2959: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2932: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2921: 2917: 2913: 2910: 2907: 2905: 2901: 2897: 2892: 2891: 2890: 2886: 2882: 2878: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2859: 2854: 2850: 2849: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2835: 2834: 2833: 2832: 2828: 2820: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2796: 2792: 2787: 2786: 2785: 2781: 2777: 2772: 2768: 2764: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2739: 2735: 2732: 2727: 2724: 2719: 2718: 2717: 2713: 2709: 2704: 2701: 2697: 2693: 2688: 2685: 2684: 2683: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2666: 2662: 2658: 2654: 2650: 2642: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2615: 2611: 2603: 2595: 2594: 2592: 2588: 2587: 2585: 2580: 2575: 2571: 2567: 2566: 2563: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2547: 2543: 2541: 2537: 2533: 2527: 2525: 2523: 2517: 2516: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2505: 2502: 2499: 2498: 2497: 2494: 2488: 2486: 2485: 2481: 2477: 2472: 2469: 2466: 2465: 2460: 2454: 2448: 2444: 2440: 2436: 2435: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2417: 2414: 2411: 2407: 2404: 2401: 2399: 2395: 2391: 2388: 2385: 2382: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2363: 2360: 2357: 2354: 2350: 2347: 2344: 2341: 2340:substantially 2337: 2336: 2335: 2331: 2326: 2323: 2320: 2317: 2314: 2313: 2308: 2305: 2302: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2285: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2275: 2269: 2265: 2261: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2228: 2223: 2220: 2216: 2213: 2210: 2207: 2203: 2199: 2198: 2196: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2181: 2177: 2175: 2171: 2167: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2157: 2153: 2150: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2119: 2116: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2109: 2108: 2107: 2106: 2101: 2100: 2098: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2078: 2076: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2052: 2049: 2036: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2017: 2013: 2008: 2007: 2006: 2002: 1998: 1994: 1991: 1990: 1989: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1948: 1939: 1938: 1931: 1930: 1928: 1925: 1924: 1913: 1909: 1905: 1900: 1891: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1874: 1873: 1866: 1862: 1858: 1854: 1853: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1827: 1826: 1821: 1815: 1814: 1807: 1803: 1802: 1800: 1796: 1789: 1788: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1777: 1772: 1764: 1763: 1756: 1755:summary style 1752: 1748: 1743: 1742: 1735: 1731: 1730: 1728: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1710: 1706: 1702: 1698: 1697: 1690: 1686: 1680: 1679: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1656: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1640: 1639: 1637: 1633: 1632: 1627: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1592:lead sections 1589: 1585: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1568: 1567: 1565: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1556: 1553:review – see 1552: 1543: 1540: 1535: 1532: 1528: 1525: 1522: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1510: 1505: 1504: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1487: 1485: 1481: 1477: 1474: 1471: 1468: 1465: 1462: 1460: 1456: 1452: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1431: 1430: 1426: 1420: 1416: 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1392: 1387: 1383: 1379: 1375: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1358: 1357: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1339: 1328: 1327: 1326: 1325: 1320: 1319: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1270: 1266: 1257: 1255: 1251: 1248: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1231: 1224: 1220: 1216: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1205: 1201: 1197: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1184: 1180: 1170: 1168: 1164: 1161: 1159: 1155: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1136: 1130: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1113: 1112: 1108: 1105: 1102: 1098: 1095: 1089: 1087: 1083: 1078: 1077: 1069: 1066: 1064: 1061: 1059: 1056: 1055: 1053: 1052: 1047: 1041: 1038: 1036: 1033: 1031: 1028: 1027: 1025: 1024: 1019: 1013: 1005: 1000: 995: 994: 980: 979: 976: 975: 971: 968: 964: 963: 959: 954: 949: 948: 936: 935:its talk page 931: 926: 922: 918: 917: 912: 905: 904: 896: 895:its talk page 891: 886: 882: 878: 877: 872: 865: 864: 856: 855:its talk page 851: 846: 842: 838: 837: 832: 825: 824: 816: 815:its talk page 811: 806: 802: 798: 797: 792: 785: 784: 780: 776: 772: 765: 764: 748: 744: 738: 735: 734: 731: 714: 710: 706: 702: 701: 696: 693: 689: 688: 684: 678: 675: 672: 668: 655: 651: 645: 642: 641: 638: 621: 617: 616:social issues 613: 609: 605: 601: 600: 595: 592: 588: 587: 583: 577: 574: 571: 567: 554: 550: 544: 541: 540: 537: 524:Animal rights 520: 516: 515:animal rights 512: 511: 506: 503: 499: 498: 494: 488: 487:Animal rights 485: 482: 478: 462: 454: 450: 449: 446: 438: 434: 433: 430: 422: 418: 417: 414: 406: 402: 401: 398: 396: 391: 390: 385: 381: 377: 373: 367: 364: 363: 360: 343: 342: 337: 333: 332: 324: 313: 311: 308: 304: 303: 299: 292: 288: 284: 280: 275: 272: 269: 265: 252: 248: 242: 239: 238: 235: 218: 214: 210: 209: 204: 201: 197: 196: 192: 186: 183: 180: 176: 171: 167: 161: 153: 149: 144: 143: 136: 131: 123: 121: 120: 116: 113: 112: 108: 106: 105: 101: 98: 94: 93: 89: 87: 86: 82: 79: 75: 74: 70: 67: 64: 63: 58: 54: 50: 49: 44: 40: 36: 35: 34: 28: 25: 22: 18: 17: 4173: 4142: 4001: 3941: 3923: 3908: 3881: 3857: 3734: 3731:Introduction 3667: 3642: 3640: 3624: 3620: 3616: 3613: 3602: 3593: 3584: 3580: 3570: 3561: 3552: 3544: 3539: 3532: 3525: 3444: 3441: 3438: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3369: 3353: 3343: 3325: 3315: 3307: 3288: 3257: 3246: 3147: 3129: 3086: 3068: 3064: 3000: 2973: 2969: 2963: 2930: 2852: 2755:Eric Herboso 2730: 2722: 2646: 2607: 2573:longtermism. 2509: 2495: 2492: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2461: 2458: 2409: 2405: 2393: 2372: 2352: 2339: 2333: 2311: 2310: 2300: 2293: 2283: 2277: 2079: 2072: 2069: 2066: 2063: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2045: 1952: 1926: 1898: 1823: 1798: 1774: 1749:B. It stays 1734:main aspects 1726: 1635: 1629: 1578: 1564:well written 1563: 1557:for criteria 1549: 1548: 1514: 1406: 1373: 1337: 1300: 1264: 1178: 1134: 1114: 1103: 1093: 1092: 1079: 1068:Instructions 998: 965: 957: 914: 874: 834: 794: 742: 698: 649: 612:microfinance 597: 548: 508: 371: 339: 329: 291:Contemporary 246: 206: 166:WikiProjects 134: 117: 102: 83: 48:reassessment 46: 31: 30: 26: 4122:WP:OVERCITE 4104:WP:OVERCITE 3907:The quote " 3904:approaches. 3093:. pp. 1–9. 2982:WP:PREPRINT 2909:User:19h00s 2612:(she/her • 2590:nonprofits. 2532:longtermism 2284:independent 2014:(she/her • 1981:(she/her • 1835:with their 1521:WP:OVERCITE 1435:WP:OVERCITE 1082:transcluded 1004:ClueBot III 930:its history 890:its history 850:its history 810:its history 43:renominated 4221:Categories 3978:true that 3603:www.ft.com 3545:References 3308:References 3165:verifiable 2579:due weight 1709:plagiarism 1631:verifiable 1035:Authorship 1021:GA toolbox 919:page were 879:page were 839:page were 799:page were 709:Investment 347:Philosophy 336:philosophy 274:Philosophy 124:Not listed 109:Not listed 90:Not listed 3229:Recursing 3151:Recursing 3122:241220220 3115:829259960 2811:Jmill1806 2687:Jmill1806 2673:Jmill1806 2629:Ruthgrace 2439:Ruthgrace 2245:Ruthgrace 2166:Ruthgrace 2097:Ruthgrace 2082:Ruthgrace 2027:Ruthgrace 1997:Ruthgrace 1661:are from 1490:Ruthgrace 1476:Ruthgrace 1451:Ruthgrace 1411:Ruthgrace 1378:Ruthgrace 1343:Ruthgrace 1341:for now. 1305:Ruthgrace 1272:Ruthgrace 1215:Ruthgrace 1186:Ruthgrace 1094:Reviewer: 1058:Templates 1049:Reviewing 1014:GA Review 4188:Alenoach 3928:Alenoach 3915:desired. 3821:Maybe... 3797:I think 3763:Alenoach 3737:Alenoach 3735:Please @ 3701:Alenoach 3671:Alenoach 3423:is worse 3212:, incl. 3205:sources. 2753:Thanks, 2702:sources. 2661:Greyfell 2534:include 2518:Before: 2299:I think 2278:The Lede 1949:Response 1861:relevant 1806:edit war 1620:WP:INTRO 1555:WP:WIAGA 1407:Deferred 1301:Deferred 1153:changing 1107:contribs 1063:Criteria 999:365 days 958:Archives 3967:deluged 3799:WP:LEDE 3623:and in 3072:project 2994:Herboso 2746:Herboso 2610:Qzekrom 2528:After: 2425:Xx78900 2398:WP:NPOV 2260:Xx78900 2230:Xx78900 2152:Xx78900 2130:others. 2075:WP:CRIT 2048:Xx78900 2012:Qzekrom 1979:Qzekrom 1927:Overall 1904:Danihab 1776:neutral 1657:B. All 1604:fiction 1545:review. 1118:Xx78900 1097:Xx78900 745:on the 705:Finance 652:on the 551:on the 374:on the 287:Science 249:on the 156:B-class 68:Process 4038:. Re: 3527:Asto77 3405:EA is 3350:WP:POV 3346:Asto77 3276:Asto77 3248:Asto77 3216:, and 2986:WP:SPS 2936:19h00s 2877:WP:UGC 2858:WP:UGC 2771:WP:UGC 2700:WP:UGC 2692:WP:UGC 2669:Tweets 2663:as an 2368:scope. 2294:per se 1839:, and 1833:tagged 1825:images 1799:stable 1797:Is it 1773:Is it 1725:Is it 1682:cited. 1628:Is it 1618:Fails 1606:, and 1596:layout 1562:Is it 1249:After: 921:merged 881:merged 841:merged 801:merged 775:merged 413:Ethics 279:Ethics 162:scale. 71:Result 29:was a 3506:here. 3291:WP:RS 3119:S2CID 2218:here. 1634:with 1084:from 967:Index 923:into 883:into 843:into 803:into 4208:talk 4192:talk 4161:talk 4130:talk 4112:talk 4078:talk 4059:talk 4026:talk 3992:talk 3950:talk 3932:talk 3890:talk 3870:talk 3848:talk 3833:talk 3813:talk 3789:talk 3767:talk 3754:Hi @ 3745:talk 3721:talk 3705:talk 3690:talk 3675:talk 3655:talk 3633:talk 3512:talk 3493:talk 3478:talk 3450:talk 3380:talk 3362:talk 3299:talk 3280:talk 3265:talk 3233:talk 3194:Hi @ 3185:talk 3135:talk 3112:OCLC 3103:ISBN 3051:talk 3008:talk 2991:Eric 2940:talk 2931:that 2920:talk 2900:talk 2885:talk 2866:talk 2843:talk 2815:talk 2795:talk 2780:talk 2743:Eric 2731:lots 2712:talk 2677:talk 2659:and 2633:talk 2614:talk 2597:way. 2480:talk 2443:talk 2429:talk 2312:such 2264:talk 2249:talk 2234:talk 2187:talk 2170:talk 2156:talk 2140:all. 2095:Hi @ 2086:talk 2046:Hey 2031:talk 2016:talk 2001:talk 1983:talk 1967:talk 1908:talk 1899:Done 1707:nor 1579:(EA) 1530:box. 1494:talk 1480:talk 1455:talk 1415:talk 1382:talk 1374:Done 1347:talk 1338:Done 1309:talk 1276:talk 1265:Done 1219:talk 1204:talk 1190:talk 1179:Done 1122:talk 1101:talk 707:and 644:High 614:and 543:High 366:High 65:Date 3984:not 3980:all 3976:not 3882:now 3095:doi 2974:not 2970:any 2723:not 2557:to 2410:!!! 2406:!!! 2353:are 2332:4. 2276:3. 2205:EA. 2197:2: 1757:): 737:Low 241:Top 4223:: 4210:) 4194:) 4174:I 4163:) 4132:) 4114:) 4080:) 4061:) 4028:) 3994:) 3952:) 3942:is 3934:) 3926:" 3892:) 3872:) 3850:) 3835:) 3815:) 3791:) 3769:) 3747:) 3723:) 3707:) 3692:) 3677:) 3657:) 3635:) 3601:. 3585:73 3583:. 3579:. 3514:) 3495:) 3480:) 3452:) 3382:) 3364:) 3324:. 3301:) 3282:) 3267:) 3235:) 3187:) 3137:) 3117:. 3110:. 3101:. 3078:— 3053:) 3045:. 3039:is 3010:) 2942:) 2922:) 2902:) 2887:) 2868:) 2860:. 2853:If 2845:) 2817:) 2797:) 2782:) 2714:) 2679:) 2635:) 2482:) 2445:) 2431:) 2266:) 2251:) 2236:) 2189:) 2172:) 2158:) 2088:) 2033:) 2003:) 1969:) 1929:: 1910:) 1867:: 1847:: 1828:? 1801:? 1779:? 1729:? 1711:: 1691:: 1673:: 1645:: 1638:? 1610:: 1602:, 1598:, 1594:, 1566:? 1551:GA 1496:) 1482:) 1457:) 1417:) 1384:) 1349:) 1311:) 1278:) 1252:* 1243:* 1221:) 1206:) 1192:) 1165:* 1156:* 1124:) 1109:) 972:, 610:, 393:/ 289:/ 285:/ 281:/ 277:: 4206:( 4190:( 4159:( 4128:( 4110:( 4076:( 4067:@ 4057:( 4024:( 3990:( 3963:: 3959:@ 3948:( 3930:( 3888:( 3868:( 3846:( 3831:( 3811:( 3787:( 3765:( 3743:( 3719:( 3703:( 3688:( 3673:( 3653:( 3631:( 3605:. 3510:( 3491:( 3476:( 3448:( 3425:? 3378:( 3360:( 3330:. 3297:( 3278:( 3263:( 3231:( 3183:( 3153:: 3149:@ 3133:( 3124:. 3097:: 3049:( 3006:( 2938:( 2918:( 2898:( 2883:( 2864:( 2841:( 2813:( 2793:( 2778:( 2710:( 2675:( 2631:( 2616:) 2581:. 2542:. 2524:. 2478:( 2441:( 2427:( 2262:( 2247:( 2232:( 2185:( 2168:( 2154:( 2084:( 2029:( 2018:) 1999:( 1985:) 1965:( 1906:( 1492:( 1478:( 1453:( 1437:. 1413:( 1380:( 1345:( 1307:( 1274:( 1217:( 1202:( 1188:( 1120:( 1104:· 1099:( 974:2 970:1 937:. 897:. 857:. 817:. 749:. 656:. 555:. 378:. 253:. 168:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.