Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio.
This is: Wikipedia editing is important, tractable, and neglected, published by Darius_M on the Effective Altruism Forum.
1. Key Takeaways
The case for Wikipedia editing in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles are widely read and trusted, there is much low hanging fruit for improvement, and editing Wikipedia has low barriers to entry and is relatively low effort. Consequently, improving a Wikipedia article may benefit the reasoning and actions of its thousands, and often millions, of readers. Moreover, since Wikipedia is a global public good, improvements to Wikipedia are likely undersupplied relative to the socially optimal level.
Careful prioritisation is crucial. Improving or creating some Wikipedia articles could easily be 100x to 1,000x as valuable as others. The key factors to consider for prioritisation are (i) pageviews, (ii) audience, (iii) topic, (iv) room for improvement, and (v) language.
Respecting Wikipedia community rules and norms is key. The Wikipedia community is wary of people making edits to promote a particular idea, person, or organisation, especially when there are relevant conflicts of interest. Consequently, edits that violate Wikipedia rules and norms may be actively harmful and are likely to be deleted. However, there are currently still very many genuine gaps in the quality and coverage of Wikipedia articles, and filling these gaps tends to work well and is regarded highly.
Contributing to or starting a WikiProject on an important topic may be valuable. A WikiProject is a group of contributors who want to work together as a team to improve Wikipedia. A WikiProject allows for more efficient collaboration, by providing a centralised place where interested editors can make plans and discuss proposals.
There are self-interested reasons to edit Wikipedia. In particular, Wikipedia editing can be really fun, it is a great opportunity to learn more about a topic, it may help you improve your writing, and it may be a useful signal in some communities or for some professional opportunities.
Some EA-relevant content is better suited to a specialised EA Wiki than to Wikipedia. For instance, content that is too niche to meet Wikipedia’s notability requirements.
Please note that much of this post is not original, drawing on existing writing (see the “Relevant Resources” section). However, I felt it was important to add to, synthesise and popularise these ideas here on the forum. Any mistakes are my own.
2. Respecting Wikipedia Rules
Before giving the positive argument for Wikipedia editing, I want to stress the importance of becoming familiar with and respecting the rules and norms governing Wikipedia editing.
Lack of familiarity with the relevant rules and norms is one of the main reasons editors have their contributions reverted. The most important ones include:
Neutral point of view: “All Wikipedia articles (...) must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias.”
Verifiability: “Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source.”
No original research: “Wikipedia does not publish original thought (...) Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources.”
Notability: “Article and list topics must be notable, or “worthy of notice”. (...) if no reliable, independent sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.”
Conflict of interest (COI): “COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. (...) COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia.”
Paid-contribution disclosure: “If you are paid in any way for contributin...
view more