The following post is relevant enough that I'd tag it if it was on the Forum, but I'm not sure it's relevant enough to add to Bibliography: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7jSvfeyh8ogu8GcE6/
Maybe this post actually is relevant enough to add to the Bibliography. But in any case, this makes me think of the more general idea that it seems to my intuitions that the "bar" for inclusion in the Bibliography is higher, such that some pieces that would warrant a tag (if they were Forum posts) don't warrant any link from the wiki entry (since they aren't Forum posts), which seems like a minor problem. Does anyone have thoughts on that?
I guess in this case I could add the post to the collection I've made as a comment that the Bibliography links to. (I might do that in a couple days.) But that option wouldn't be available for most wiki entries.
Looking at the reference list, it's noteworthy that there aren't more articles that introduce the Long reflection more systematically and in greater detail. I think that such an article would be good.
That's another use case for this Wikipedia: to identify gaps in the EA literature.
The following post is relevant enough that I'd tag it if it was on the Forum, but I'm not sure it's relevant enough to add to Bibliography: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7jSvfeyh8ogu8GcE6/
Maybe this post actually is relevant enough to add to the Bibliography. But in any case, this makes me think of the more general idea that it seems to my intuitions that the "bar" for inclusion in the Bibliography is higher, such that some pieces that would warrant a tag (if they were Forum posts) don't warrant any link from the wiki entry (since they aren't Forum posts), which seems like a minor problem. Does anyone have thoughts on that?
I guess in this case I could add the post to the collection I've made as a comment that the Bibliography links to. (I might do that in a couple days.) But that option wouldn't be available for most wiki entries.
Looking at the reference list, it's noteworthy that there aren't more articles that introduce the Long reflection more systematically and in greater detail. I think that such an article would be good.
That's another use case for this Wikipedia: to identify gaps in the EA literature.