Propose and vote on potential tags

post by MichaelA · 2020-08-04T23:49:47.992Z · score: 37 (11 votes) · EA · GW · 55 comments

(I have no association with the EA Forum team or CEA, and this idea comes with no official mandate. I'm open to suggestions of totally different ways of doing this.)

Update: Aaron [EA · GW]here. This has our official mandate now, and I'm subscribed to the post so that I'll be notified of every comment. Please suggest tags!

The EA Forum now has tags [? · GW], and users can now make tags themselves [EA · GW]. I think this is really cool, and I've now made a bunch of tags. 

But I find it hard to decide whether some tag ideas are worth including, vs being too fine-grained or too similar to existing tags. I also feel some hesitation about taking too much unilateral action. I imagine some other forum users might feel the same way about tag ideas they have, some of which might be really good! (See also this thread [EA(p) · GW(p)].)

So I propose that this post becomes a thread where people can comment with a tag idea there's somewhat unsure about, and then other people can upvote it or downvote it based on whether they think it should indeed be its own tag. Details:

Also feel free to use this as a thread to discuss (and upvote or downvote suggestions regarding) existing tags that might not be worth having, or might be worth renaming or tweaking the scope of, or what-have-you. For example, I created the tag Political Polarisation [? · GW], but I've also left a comment here about whether it should be changed or removed.

55 comments

Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-05T00:04:43.901Z · score: 16 (5 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Political Polarisation [? · GW]

I already made this tag, but maybe it should be removed.

Arguments against its existence: 

  • Not currently a very commonly discussed topic in EA
  • Arguably related to the tag Policy Change [? · GW]
  • Maybe there's some other tag that would do a better job covering this and related matters. Super rough ideas: Cultural Forces; Culture, Politics, & Norms; Institutions & Norms

Arguments for its existence:

  • Some EAs seem quite interested in this
  • Interest may be increasing: There were 3 posts on the topic just this year, which each got decent to large amounts of attention
  • There may also be a lot of interest in this on LessWrong? If so, this may ultimately spill over to more interest here?
  • My shortform collection of posts on the topic [EA(p) · GW(p)] got 17 karma
comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-11T04:22:52.288Z · score: 8 (6 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Now vs Later, or Optimal Timing, or Optimal Timing for Altruists, or some other name.

This would be intended to capture posts relevant to the debate over "giving now vs later" and "patient vs urgent longtermism", as well as related debates like whether to do direct work now vs build career capital vs movement-build, and how much to give/work now vs later, and when to give/work if not now ("later" is a very large category!). 

This tag would overlap with Hinge of History [? · GW], but seems meaningfully distinct from that.

Not sure what the best name would be. 

comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-11T12:48:09.665Z · score: 9 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Patient Philanthropy seems like the general category. Not all of it will be about the debate as to whether it's right, but it seems like a tag that encompasses questions like, "given that I want to give later, how do I do that" seems good.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-11T23:22:24.947Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Thanks for highlighting patient philanthropy as an option, and good point that it'd be good for this tag to not just be about the debate but also how to implement the patient approach.

I've now made this tag, though with the name Patient Altruism [? · GW]. I haven't heard that term used, but it makes sense to me as a generalisation of patient philanthropy to also account for how to use work, not just how to use donations. I've now also written a shortform post [EA(p) · GW(p)] arguing for the term.

One worry I have is that by saying Patient Altruism rather than Patient vs Urgent Altruism, this tag puts virtuous connotations on one side but not the other. But the version with "vs Urgent" is longer, it perhaps doesn't as naturally include posts about how to take the patient approach, and I've only heard the term "urgent longtermism", not "urgent philanthropy" (though I do suggest use of the terms "urgent philanthropy" and "urgent altruism" in that shortform post [EA(p) · GW(p)]).

comment by saulius · 2020-08-07T08:06:29.910Z · score: 8 (5 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

When tags were introduced [EA · GW], the post said to "submit new tag ideas to us using this form." I made a bunch of suggestions (don't remember what they were) and probably some other people did too. Could someone who has access to results of that form paste all those suggestions here?

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-07T09:25:49.777Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

That sounds like a great idea!

I think ideally they’d be pasted as separate comments, so they can each be voted up or down separately. (Not saying you were suggesting otherwise.)

comment by Larks · 2020-08-26T15:47:53.866Z · score: 7 (4 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I like Lists, so get me a List of Lists for my tag List.

There are a number of good posts that are basically lists of links to different articles (like this one [EA · GW]). It would be nice to be able to easily access them.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-26T17:46:16.951Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I very much share this affection for lists.

I think Collection and Resources [? · GW] might cover this? E.g., those reading lists from Richard Ngo have each been given that tag.

Do you think there's still a gap for a List tag, or a way the description of the Collection and Resources tag should be adjusted?

comment by Larks · 2020-08-26T18:27:33.977Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Ahh yes, that covers it. I looked through the list of tags to check if there was already something on there; I guess I missed that one.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-29T18:20:48.129Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Operations

Arguments against

Arguments for:

  • I'd guess there are at least 5 relevant posts
    • Some posts with the above-mentioned tags might be relevant
  • I'd guess there'll be more relevant posts in future
  • I'd guess at least a few EA forum users would appreciate seeing a collection of posts on this
comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-05T00:14:02.593Z · score: 6 (4 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].

[Something about war, armed conflict, or great power conflict]

Arguments against:

Arguments for:

  • Arguably a very important subset of International Relations, which might warrant a tag of its own.
  • Arguably not entirely a subset of International Relations, as things like civil/intrastate armed conflicts could also be important. (But maybe any EA Forum post that covers that would in practice also cover other International Relations things.)
comment by EdoArad (edoarad) · 2020-10-03T08:49:19.415Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I've added a Meta-Science [? · GW] tag. I'd love for some help with clarifying the distinction between it and Scientific Progress [? · GW].  

Generally, I imagine meta-science as being more focused on specific aspects of the academic ecosystem and scientific progress to be related more to the general properties of scientific advances. There is clearly an overlap there, but I'm not sure where exactly to set the boundaries. 

comment by MichaelStJules · 2020-09-13T03:51:34.614Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Would be good if tags always had descriptions/definitions of the things they're for.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-09-13T07:04:35.042Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Agreed. I think people creating tags should probably always add those descriptions/definitions.

One thing I'd note is that anyone can add descriptions/definitions for tags, even if they didn't create them. This could be hard if you're not sure what the scope was meant to be, but if you think you know what the scope was meant to be, you could consider adding a description/definition yourself.

comment by MichaelStJules · 2020-09-13T03:50:37.267Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Do we need both Longtermism (Philosophy) and Long-Term Future?

comment by MichaelA · 2020-09-13T07:22:51.680Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Personally, I think those two tags have sufficiently large and separate scopes for it to make sense for the forum to have both tags. (I didn't create either tag, by the way.) 

But the Longtermism (Philosophy) tag has perhaps been used too liberally, including for posts that should've only been given tags like Long-Term Future or Existential Risk. Perhaps this is because the Longtermism (Philosophy) tag was around before Long-Term Future was created (not sure if that's true), and/or because the first two sentences of the Longtermism (Philosophy) tag didn't explicitly indicate that its scope was limited to philosophical aspects of longtermism only. Inspired by your comment, I've now edited the tag description to hopefully help a bit with that. 

The tag description used to be:

Longtermism is the idea that we can maximize our impact by working to ensure that the long-run future goes well (because it may contain an enormous number of people whose lives we may be able to improve).

This is a relatively new idea, and people in the EA movement currently work on a wide range of open questions related to different facets of longtermism. 

This tag is meant for discussion of longtermist philosophy, rather than specific longtermist cause areas (there are other tags for those, like Existential Risk [? · GW]).

The tag description is now:

The Longtermism (Philosophy) tag is for posts about philosophical matters relevant to longtermism, meaning, roughly, "an ethical view that is particularly concerned with ensuring long-run outcomes go well" (MacAskill [EA · GW]). Longtermism is a relatively new idea, and people in the EA movement currently work on a wide range of open questions related to different facets of longtermism. 

For posts about what the long-term future might actually look like, see Long-Term Future [? · GW]. For posts about specific longtermist cause areas, see other tags such as Existential Risk [? · GW].

(The second sentence could perhaps be cut.)

For comparison, the tag description of Long-Term Future is:

The Long-Term Future tag is meant for discussion of what the long-term future might actually look like. This doesn't necessarily overlap with the Longtermism (Philosophy) [? · GW] tag, because a post attempting to e.g. model the future of space travel won't necessarily discuss the philosophical implications of its model.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-29T11:44:33.384Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Cooperation & Coordination or [just one of those terms] or Moral Trade

(I think I lean towards the first option and away from Moral Trade.)

Proposed description: 

The Cooperation & Coordination tag is for posts about whether, when, and how people - especially effective altruists and others aiming to do good - should cooperate and coordinate. Such posts will often draw on ideas related to game theory, moral trade, moral uncertainty [? · GW], and how to think about and measure counterfactual impact. 

See also Movement Strategy [? · GW], Moral Advocacy / Values Spreading [? · GW], and Epistemic Humility. [? · GW]

Some posts this would cover:

Arguments against this:

  • Too broad?
    • Maybe it just sounds that way, and a different name and/or description would fix that?
  • Well covered by the other tags mentioned above?
    • I don't think so, really
  • Not enough forum posts this is relevant too?
    • Even if that's true, I expect there will be more in future, or that we should just fix that by making link posts to CLR and 80k posts

Alternative idea:

  • A tag for Game Theory?
    • But that feels like a less natural category for the forum for me
comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-30T08:00:54.267Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I lightly think both is better than either one on its own.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-30T09:15:42.895Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Ok, I've now made this tag [? · GW] and used the name that includes both terms :)

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-23T17:17:22.994Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Improving Institutional Decision-Making (or similar)

Argument against:

  • Arguably overlaps somewhat with the existing tags Forecasting, Policy Change, Political Polarisation, International Relations, Direct Democracy, and European Union
  • It might make more sense to instead change the name and description of Policy Change so it more clearly covers improving institutional decision-making as well

Arguments for:

  • Seems substantially distinct from any of the above tags, including Policy Change
  • A major topic in EA (e.g., one of 80k's main problem areas, has a large FB group)
  • There are already 64 posts tagged Policy Change, and I'd guess >20 posts could warrant the tag Improving Institutional Decision-Making. So I think even if the topics overlapped quite a bit (which I'm not sure they do), they could each warrant a tag due to being big enough that the non-overlapping part is quite big.

The post that prompted this, because it's clearly relevant to IIDM but doesn't seem very relevant to Policy Change: Should We Prioritize Long-Term Existential Risk? [EA · GW]

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-20T13:54:13.887Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW], with the name Epistemic Humility and a description noting it can be about other, broadly related things as well.)

Social Epistemology & Epistemic Humility or [just one of those terms] or [some other label]

Some posts that might fit this tag:

comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-20T14:22:30.033Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I really like Social Epistemology except for the crucial flaw that I haven't heard it called that before. Without the ability for people to recognize it, I think it's worse than Epistemic Humility. (Normally I'd prefer the more general term, rather than a term for one strategy within the space.)

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-20T15:11:18.400Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I haven't heard it called that before

Do you mean you haven't heard the term social epistemology, or that you haven't heard epistemic humility specifically (or debates around that) referred to by the term social epistemology?

I'd envision this tag including not just things like "How epistemically humble should we be, and how should we update given other people's statements/beliefs?", but also things like when we should give just our conclusions vs also our reasoning if we're concerned about information cascades [? · GW], and to what extent publicly stating explicit estimates will cause anchoring by others. Those things could arguably be seen as about epistemic humility in that they're about how to communicate given how other people might handle epistemic humility, but saying they're about social epistemology (or something else) seems more natural to me. 

(That said, I think I'm only familiar with the term social epistemology from how it's occasionally used by EAs, and the Wikipedia article's lead section makes me uncertain if they're using the term in the standard way.)

Maybe the best tag label would be Epistemic Humility & Social Epistemology, to put the term that's more common in EA first? That's a longer label than average, though.

FWIW, both my suggestion of this tag and my suggestion of the term social epistemology for it were prompted by the following part of Owen Cotton-Barratt's recent post [EA · GW]:

Learning can be much more efficient if we allow the transmission of heuristics between people, but if you don't require people to have any grounding in their own experience or cases they've directly heard about, it's possible for heuristics to be propagated without regard for whether they're still useful, or if the underlying circumstances have changed enough that they shouldn't be applied. Navigating this tension is an interesting problem in social epistemology.

comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-20T15:10:41.722Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I have now read the post that contains Social Epistemology.

I also wasn't clear before, but I was biasing towards one shorter label or another.

comment by Max_Daniel · 2020-08-13T10:05:01.055Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Global priorities research and macrostrategy.

I wanted to use these tags when asking this question [EA · GW], but they don't seem to exist.

There is a tag on cause prioritization. But I think it'd be more useful if that tag was focused on content that is directly relevant for prioritizing between causes, e.g. "here is why I think cause A is more tractable than cause B" or "here's a framework for assessing the neglectedness of a cause". Some global priorities or macrostrategy research has this property, but not all of it. E.g. I think it'd be a bit of a stretch to apply the cause prioritization label to this (amazing!) post on Quantifying anthropic effects on the Fermi paradox [EA · GW].

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-14T01:08:02.439Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'm tentatively in favour of Macrostrategy. A big issue is that I don't have a crisp sense of what macrostrategy is meant to be about, and conversations I've had suggests that a lot of people who work on it feel the same. So I'd have a hard time deciding what to give that tag to. But I do think it's a useful concept, and the example post you mention does seem to me a good example of something that is macrostrategy and isn't cause prioritisation.

I feel like a tag for Global Priorities Research is probably unnecessary once we have tags for both Cause Prioritisation and Macrostrategy? But I could be wrong. (Also I'm just offering my views as inputs; I have no gate-keeping role and anyone can make whatever tags they want.)

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-12T00:12:02.857Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Moral Uncertainty

Argument against:

Argument for:

  • Arguably an important subset of Moral Philosophy
  • I'd estimate there's at least 10 posts on the topic
comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-12T08:08:19.629Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'd be in favor.

comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-08-12T11:39:37.650Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

What's the intended difference between Meta-Ethics and Moral Philosophy?

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-13T08:17:20.692Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

As I understand it, ethics is often split into the branches meta-ethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics. I'm guessing the Moral Philosophy tag is meant to cover all of those branches, or maybe just the latter two. Meta-Ethics would just cover questions about "the nature, scope, and meaning of moral judgment" (Wikipedia).

So some questions that wouldn't fit in Meta-Ethics, but would fit in Moral Philosophy, include:

  • Should we be deontologists or consequentialists?
  • What should be considered intrinsically valuable (e.g., suffering, pleasure, preference satisfaction, achievement, etc.)?
  • What beings should be in our moral circles [EA · GW]?

Whereas Meta-Ethics could include posts on things like arguments for moral realism vs moral antirealism. (I'm not sure whether those posts should also go in Moral Philosophy.)

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-08T06:32:17.247Z · score: 4 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I noticed there's no Consciousness tag, so I was going to create one, but then I saw the Sentience [? · GW] tag. Perhaps that should be renamed "Sentience / Consciousness", and/or its description should be tweaked to mention consciousness?

(I'm putting this here so it can be up- or down-voted to inform whether this change should be made. I think the tag pages will later have the equivalent of Wikipedia's "Talk" pages [EA(p) · GW(p)], at which point I'd put comments like this there instead.) 

(Update: This got 2 upvotes, and continues to seem to me like a good idea, so I updated the name and description of this tag accordingly.)

comment by Aaron Gertler (aarongertler) · 2020-08-07T07:17:13.990Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I've edited this post to include our official mandate at the top. Thanks for creating it, MichaelA!

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-05T00:23:37.940Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Global Catastrophic Risk

Argument against:

  • Obviously very related to Existential Risk, and to various other tags like Civilizational Collapse & Recovery and Nuclear Weapons

Argument for:

Some posts that might fit this tag but not the Existential Risk tag:

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-05T00:17:43.504Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

[Any 80,000 problem areas and career paths - or the additional problem areas [EA · GW] and career ideas [EA · GW] they mention - that are not directly covered by existing tags]

I haven't yet looked through these problem areas and career paths/ideas with this in mind, to see what's not covered by existing tags and what the arguments for and against creating new tags for these things would be. 

(Feel free to comment yourself with specific tag ideas drawn from the 80k problem areas and career paths, or the additional ones they mention.)

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-25T07:44:05.266Z · score: 8 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Nanotechnology or Atomically Precise Manufacturing

Arguments against:

Arguments for:

  • Not super niche
  • 80k highlight this a potentially important area (though it's not one of their top priorities)
  • The small set of (maybe-not-trustworthy) estimates we have [EA · GW] suggest nanotech/APM is decently likely to be among the top 10 largest existential risks we know of (given usual ways of classifying things), and perhaps smaller only than AI and bio
comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-08T06:50:23.722Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Space (or maybe Space Governance, or Space Governance & Colonisation, or something along those lines)

"Governance of outer space" is mentioned by 80k here [EA · GW].

Would perhaps just be a subset of Long-Term Future. But perhaps a sufficiently large and important subset to warrant its own tag.

Some posts this should include:

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-04T23:57:43.080Z · score: 4 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now created this tag.)

Meta-Ethics [? · GW]

Argument against: This is arguably a subset of the tag Moral Philosophy.

Arguments for: This seems like an important subset, which there are several Forum posts about, and which some people might appreciate a specific tag about (e.g., if they're beginning to grapple with meta-ethics and are less focused on moral philosophy as a whole right now).

Some posts this should include:

comment by TrenchFloat · 2020-10-03T18:56:39.445Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Change My View!

I found r/ChangeMyView recently and I think it's the bee's knees. "A place to post an opinion you accept may be flawed, in an effort to understand other perspectives on the issue."

There are already a good deal of questions and posts inviting criticism on this forum, and this tag could organize them all for the people who enjoy a good, clean disagreement/discussion. It could be used especially (or only) for ideas with <50% certainty.

The subreddit itself is a cool place to go, but many issues are more fruitfully discussed among fellow EAs, or would just work better on the EA Forum.


I'm happy to learn if Change My View is actually not a good format for discussion - I just found out about it, so no harm done.

comment by Emanuele_Ascani · 2020-10-02T10:42:30.039Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'm surprised that "cost-effectiveness evaluation" doesn't exist yet.

Some others that it's weird enough that they don't exist yet: "meta-charities", "advocacy", "pandemic preparedness".

A couple of tags that would apply to all of my posts: "aging research", "scientific research".

comment by JP Addison (jpaddison) · 2020-10-02T12:29:21.988Z · score: 6 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'd be in favor of all of those tags, except "pandemic preparedness" which I currently think is too overlapping with "Biosecurity".

comment by MichaelA · 2020-10-02T16:21:15.707Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'd say "scientific research" is probably covered by Scientific Progress [? · GW], Research Methods [? · GW], and tags about specific areas scientific research can be done in?

comment by MichaelA · 2020-10-02T16:19:12.735Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I think I'm in favour of a Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation tag. (Or maybe Cost-Effectiveness Analysis? I think that's the more common term?) 

That seems similar to Impact Assessment (a tag I made last month), so some of my thoughts on that tag [EA(p) · GW(p)] might also be relevant. But I think Cost-Effectiveness Analysis is probably different enough from existing tags to be worth having.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-31T06:48:26.885Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Law

Some posts this could cover:

  • Introducing the Legal Priorities Project [EA · GW]
  • Various posts tagged International Relations, Global Governance, AI Governance (e.g., posts by GovAI and/or Cullen O'Keefe), Policy Change, Improving Institutional Decision-Making, or European Union

Arguments for:

  • I have a sense it could be useful to have a tag for each major field/discipline that many EAs are from and/or that is relevant to many EA areas.
    • The key reason is that this could maybe help people find posts relevant to their backgrounds, and think about ways they can use their backgrounds to advance EA causes.
    • I think Law would qualify here
    • I think this is the same reason why there are Facebook groups for the intersections of EA and various disciplines
  • There's already a tag for History, EA Psychology, EA Philosophy, and probably a few other areas
    • And somewhat analogously, Operations, Entrepreneurship, and Earning to Give
    • I also suggested a tag for Economics but haven't made it yet.
  • I expect there are at least 10 highly relevant posts, and that they could be readily found by going through the tags mentioned above

Arguments against:

  • Overlaps with the tags mentioned above
comment by evelynciara · 2020-08-19T01:43:53.464Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

How about a tag for global governance and/or providing global public goods? This is arguably one of the most pressing problems there is, because many of the problems EA works on are global coordination problems, including existential risk (since existential security is a global public good).

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-19T12:51:41.753Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

I'd agree that a tag for Global Governance would be good (thanks for suggesting it!). This could cover things like: 

  • how much various moves towards more global governance would help with existential risks and other global and/or transgenerational public goods issues
  • how much various moves towards more global governance could increase risks of totalitarianism
  • how to best implement or prevent various moves towards global governance
  • etc.

Personally, I don't see much value in a tag for something like providing global public goods. This is partly because that matter is common to so many different EA issues. Relatedly, I don't think many posts are especially focused on global public goods provision, relative to a huge portion of other posts. But that's just my tentative two cents.

If no one suggests otherwise or does it themselves, I'll probably create a Global Governance tag in a couple days.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-25T07:25:15.897Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].

comment by Timothy_Liptrot · 2020-08-15T18:33:39.555Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Please separate global development from global health.

Global health is one part of global development, which can include political, economic and humanitarian interventions. I write on politics in developing countries, but I'm probably the only one on the forum so I don't need my own tag.

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-12T09:13:18.824Z · score: 3 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Cluelessness

Arguments against:

  • Perhaps somewhat niche?
  • My current [EA · GW] independent impression is that cluelessness, or some of the ideas or implications that people associate with it, is a confused and not especially useful idea, and that we shouldn't really worry about it
    • (I definitely think we're very uncertain about a lot of things and should take that very seriously, but that doesn't require the term "cluelessness")
    • (See also [EA · GW])

Arguments for:

  • Many smart longtermist and/or philosophically minded EAs seem to think cluelessness is a really important idea, and I think some non-EA philosophers write about the idea as well. The outside view says there's a good chance that they're right and I'm wrong.
  • In any case, given that many people talk and think about cluelessness, it might be useful to make it easier for people to find posts about the idea, and then ideally those posts would help their beliefs converge on the truth (which may or may not be that the concept isn't useful).
comment by MichaelA · 2020-09-08T09:22:48.642Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(Update: I've now made this tag [? · GW].)

Impact Assessment (or maybe something like Impact Measurement or Measuring Impact)

Proposed rough description: 

The Impact Assessment tag is for posts relevant to "measuring the effectiveness of organisational activities and judging the significance of changes brought about by those activities" (source). This could include posts which include impact assessments; discuss pros, cons, and best practices for impact assessment; or discuss theories of change or forecasts of impacts, against which measured impacts could later be compared. 

See also Org Strategy [? · GW], Statistical Methods [? · GW], and Research Methods [? · GW].

A handful of the many posts that this tag would fit: 

comment by MichaelA · 2020-09-08T09:23:04.648Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

In addition to the three tags mentioned as “See also”, this tag would perhaps overlap a bit with the tags:

  • Forecasting
  • Org Update
  • Cause Prioritization
  • Community Projects
  • Criticism (EA Cause Areas)
  • Criticism (EA Movement)
  • Criticism (EA Orgs)
  • Data (EA Community)
  • EA Funding
comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-29T06:01:12.722Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Economics

The Economics tag would be for posts focusing on topics in the domain of economics, making particularly heavy use of concepts or tools from economics, or highlighting ways for people with economics backgrounds to do good.

Some posts that would fit:

Arguments against this tag:

  • Overlaps/subsumes with Economic Growth
  • Overlaps a bit with Global Health and Development and maybe Statistical Methods
  • Maybe too broad a category, as economics concepts and tools are used at least a bit in a lot of EA stuff
  • Maybe it wouldn't make sense to have this tag without having a tag for each of a large array of other fields/professions (e.g., Biology)
    • But maybe we should have a tag for each of a large array of other fields/professions? 
    • And we already have tags for some, e.g. EA Psychology

Arguments for:

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-25T07:51:03.787Z · score: 2 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Maybe some of the existing tags related to politics & policy should be deleted, and a tag for Politics & Policy should replace them?

Some relevant tags that might be on the chopping block: Improving Institutional Decision-Making [? · GW], Policy Change [? · GW], Political Polarisation [? · GW],  International Relations [? · GW], Direct Democracy [? · GW], and Global Governance [? · GW].

I think I'm moderately against this idea, as I think the sub-topics are large/important enough to warrant their own tags, even if there's a lot of overlap. But I thought I'd throw this idea out there anyway. 

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-25T07:52:08.131Z · score: 1 (2 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

(If you hate the above idea but also hate disrupting my delicious karma, feel free to downvote that comment and upvote this one to keep the universe in order.

Or vice versa, I guess, if you're a maverick.)

comment by fmoreno · 2020-08-08T17:50:22.116Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

Sorry if offtopic but how do I remove a tag after wrongly using it?

comment by MichaelA · 2020-08-08T22:52:23.536Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · EA(p) · GW(p)

If you mean un-tagging a page, you vote down its relevance by hovering over the tag on the page and clicking the < arrow. If the relevance score gets to or below 0, the tag is removed.

If you mean deleting a tag entirely (not just from one page), I think you'd have to message the EA Forum team?

More info on tags here [EA · GW] and here [EA · GW].