Talk:William MacAskill

Untitled

I've removed the notability query because MacAskill is one of the leading lights of the Effective Altruist movement. As far as I can tell, sourcing is impeccable.--Davidcpearce (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

---

I don't think the subject of the article does much beyond 80,000 hours, or at least is not notable outside of that project. There is no real need for a substantial extra page on this topic. I propose we merge it with 80,000_Hours or delete it. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably there are many people profiled in Wikipedia whose main claim to notability is the organisation with which they are closely associated. Perhaps there's a case for merging their entries. But doesn't merging run the risk of shedding a lot of biographical material that wouldn't be appropriate for the entry on the organisation itself? --Davidcpearce (talk) 12:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I guess that will be something for the editors of that page to consider. I think it's easier to just merge it and let people selectively re-add the relevant bio details JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Surname

Why has his name changed from William Crouch to William MacAskill and when did this happen? The article suggests it was because he married, but it doesn't explicitly state this. In the piece in The Atlantic, dated 5 March 2013, given as a source, MacAskill explains that the name derives from his fiancée's "maternal grandmother's maiden name" and that she is descended from Angus MacAskill. Presumably MacAskill and his fiancée are now wed? It might be clearer if the article simply explained this?? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

yep done. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I was hoping to see a date for their marriage. The link to Angus MacAskill might also deserve a mention? That Atlantic source seems to just say what he intended to do? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Media mentions

moved here from the article. this content is not encyclopedic but rather is promotional. Perhaps the refs could be used to generate enyclopedic content that teaches people something about him.

MacAskill's work and his organisations have been featured in The New York Times, The Wall St Journal, The Washington Post, The Huffington Post, The Guardian, BBC News, BBC Radio 4’s The Today Programme, CNBC, NPR, TED, and other media outlets globally. He is a regular contributor to Quartz, and has written for The New Yorker, The Guardian, The Independent, Time, and The Washington Post.

References

-- Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The LRB book review by Srinivasan is inaccurately characterized as positive. Perhaps the language should be changed to "somewhat positive."

Associate Professorship and Fellowship at Lincoln College

The subject of the article is no longer Associate Professor and Tutorial Fellow at Lincoln College. This can be verified by consulting the current version of the Staff and Fellows page at Lincoln College or by calling the college at 01865 279800.

The sources who say otherwise are outdated. These sources include the subject's own Academia.edu page and the subject's professional page that shows him as a team member (not as an academic) of the future of humanity institute https://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/team/william-macaskill/ and the subject's CV linked to at that page.

I have no personal or professional connection to the subject, have never met him, nor do I have any views on the subject and his projects, other than that I believe he does good work for a good cause. I just happened upon the discrepancies and inaccuracies on the page and thought it appropriate to update the page accordingly. I realize that this is far more difficult than expected. An interesting experience. PlatoAristotle (talk) 14:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Read the article - I found a source and fixed this before you posted here. Pay attention to what is actually happening. Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

User:PlatoAristotle. No-one is going to call 01865 279800 to speak to someone at Lincoln College - that would just plain WP:OR. If sources are "outdated" we can do little else but wait for sources to catch up. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Joe Rogan

He was on Joe Rogan in 2017. Maybe that could be added to the article Qwerty21212121 (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

David Brooks

I'm uncertain why David Brook's op-ed is given such prominence in the Doing Good Better section, and feel like it should be moved to the book's own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D0TheMath6.28 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Controversies

Above, Wikipedia says, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The policy says, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". It seems like that's all these 'controversies' are? (And may also be a case of Recentism?)

Also in Criticism, it says, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints...Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons...Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section".

Further, the section is not written with a NPOV. Only negative material is included, despite Wikipedia saying, "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance" and sarcastic, opinionated language is used: "it raised questions about the role of a philosopher ostensibly committed to personal austerity in this negotiation between billionaires." Schweet (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely some of it can be salvaged? The tone issues were not so extreme that the whole section had to be deleted. Roundish ⋆tc) 19:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

If tone is an issue, you can tag it for that. You appear to be a new editor. It is best to get a consensus before making decisions like deleting an entire section. Thriley (talk) 20:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you. I'll attempt a rewrite. Schweet (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Remember if you have any ties to MacAskill or any of his associates, you must disclose this per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

Thriley (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, thank you again! Yes, I'm a connected contributor. I think I've undone all my edits now. Schweet (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

In case anyone else feels like weighing in...I also just noticed that the user who added the 'Controversies' section also added under the first paragraph on the page: "In 2022, MacAskill came under criticism for his longtime endorsement of accused fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried after the implosion of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange." I know I'm biased, but...this seems a bit much? (Especially with just one source from today rather than 2022? From the policy again: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.") Schweet (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"came under criticism" appears to be a huge misreading of the Time magazine source and New York Times article, and turns simple facts (e.g. MacAskill and Bankman-Fried were associated) into something more nefarious or scandalous, in a way not represented in the sources. "Controversies" sections are typically out of place in biographies, as they become magnets for cruft and negative POV and can give misleading framing to straightforward facts, per WP:PROPORTION and WP:CRITS. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

• Specific text to be removed:

In 2022, MacAskill came under criticism for his longtime endorsement of accused fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried after the implosion of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange.[11]

Controversies

Mentorship of Sam Bankman-Fried and FTX Foundation advisory role

MacAskill was named in the team list of the FTX Future Fund that committed around $160 million in grants.[43] However, following the bankruptcy of FTX, MacAskill and the rest of the team resigned from the FTX Future Fund.[44][45]

Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter

Main article: Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk

In 2022, as tech magnate Elon Musk sought funding for his purchase of Twitter, MacAskill served as a liaison to explore the possibility of Bankman-Fried participating in the deal. Musk and MacAskill were previously acquanted; Musk described What We Owe the Future as "a close match for my philosophy." MacAskill contacted Musk to arrange a conversation with Bankman-Fried, describing him as "my collaborator".[46] Ultimately, Bankman-Fried, whose trading empire was facing massive shortfalls that were not yet publicized, did not participate in the acquisition. Still, when MacAskill's and Musk's conversation was revealed in the discovery phase of legal challenges between Musk and the existing Twitter management, it raised questions about the role of a philosopher ostensibly committed to personal austerity in this negotiation between billionaires. [47]

• Specific text to be added:

[After "He is an advisor to Longview Philanthropy..."]

and was an advisor to the FTX Future Fund until the FTX bankruptcy whereupon he immediately resigned.

• Reason for the change:

1. Above, Wikipedia says, "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy". The policy says, "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association". It seems like that's all these 'controversies' added today are?

2. Possibly a case of Recentism, especially adding an article that came out today under the first paragraph on the page?

3. In Criticism, it says, "In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints...Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons requires exercising special care in presenting negative viewpoints about living persons...Integrate negative material into sections that cover all viewpoints of the event, product, or policy that is being criticized, rather than in a dedicated "criticism" section".

4. These added sections are not written with a NPOV. Only negative material is included, despite Wikipedia saying, "Always present positive viewpoints along with any negative information to give balance" and sarcastic, opinionated language is used: "it raised questions about the role of a philosopher ostensibly committed to personal austerity in this negotiation between billionaires."

5. The BLP policy says: "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." But the accusation under the first paragraph has only one source (which, incidentally, is from today, not "2022").

6. MacAskill is not mentioned in the linked 'Main article: Acquisition of Twitter by Elon Musk.' So the link maybe is not important enough to be mentioned here? At least not with a whole section to itself?

7. Source/detail not provided for the 'mentorship' claim.

• References supporting change: See multiple URLs above.

Schweet (talk) 21:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

MacAskill’s relationship to SBF is well documented. Removing references would be whitewashing. I don’t like controversy sections, but much of this information can be just neutrally woven into the article body. Thriley (talk) 21:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't his relationship with SBF prior to the FTX meltdown be fleshed out more in the main article text for the relationship be in the lead? The reader doesn't understand how they are connected. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To my eyes, nothing in the "Controversies" section warrants being called such, this is biased framing. The "FTX Future Fund" stuff seems largely based on primary sources. @The Eddie Tour:, as the editor who added the "Controversies" content under dispute, can you explain yourself? You may not have been trying to, but it appears you are casting things in a more scandalous light than they may warrant. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for these pointers. It's been a while since I last edited wikipedia (and I've forgotten my old passwords), so I'd appreciate any help with the conventions.

For context, I made a few edits today, and was planning to flesh them out further, adding sources. It sounds like I have some work cut out for me in terms of rigor and citations.

1. "guilt by association" -- I think MacAskill's participation can be shown to be a little more active, including by today's NYT story. But I understand that the bar for proof on a BLP is higher. I'll add more sources and you can see whether you agree that bar is met.

2. True, one of the sourced articles came out today. However, these facts about the subject are relevant to a story that broke last November. I was surprised that nobody has added them to this page in the ensuing four months, and it's high time to edit this page to cover this notable aspect of MacAskill's career.

3. Ah, that makes sense. For some reason, I remembered a convention when browsing Wikipedia where some pages had separate controversy sections...maybe this style changed at some point? Anyhow, I see how integrating it into the rest of the article would help make for a more consistent NPOV. I'll do that.

4. "NPOV" -- in fleshing out the mentorship claim, I planned to also cite opposing opinions including MacAskill's responses as quoted in sources. If you have other opposing sources, I'm happy to integrate those too.

5. I can see how my first version of the sentence under the first paragraph did not meet the bar yet. However, it seems important that the intro summary ought to somehow mention his role regarding FTX, which from the perspective of many domains (such as finance, cryptocurrency) is the most notable aspect of his career. Maybe the best order to proceed is that we flesh out & agree on the body sections first, before writing a neutral summary sentence for the intro.

6. Hmm, we can come back to this point when I've provided more sources. His participation did receive extensive coverage.

7. Again, sounds like more sources are in order, otherwise I can see why you'd want to remove. There's extensive news coverage over the past 4 months, and it will take some effort to line up the sources with specific claims.

What do you think of this general approach? The Eddie Tour (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for engaging.

1. Disagree but we should probably just agree to disagree given that I"m biased.

2. Fair.

3. Sounds good.

4. Sounds good.

5. Disagree but we should probably just agree to disagree given that I"m biased.

6. Disagree but we should probably just agree to disagree given that I"m biased.

7. Don't include something until you can provide sources? Schweet (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I'll make a couple more small edits today that hopefully goes in the direction suggested here. I'll remove the "controversies" header. (Tomorrow, the exact order of sections might change more as I figure out the flow.)

I'll also tone down the language in the Twitter acquisition paragraph for now. I'd agree the sentence "raised questions about the role of a philosopher ostensibly committed to personal austerity..." was bit tilted. Also, the sources who raise those questions might not be top-rated "reliable sources", not sure. I sort of just wrote that sentence to help the content fit better in a "Controversies" section, which is moot now.

When reliable news sources covered the Musk connection, it was mainly to flesh out a deeper portrait of a complex character, not to make a direct accusation. I can see how with the polarization surrounding Musk himself, this could come off as guilty-by-association to some readers, so let's see how we can avoid such an implication. I do think the Musk endorsement tweet is notable in its own right, giving a sense of the wide influence of MacAskill's work.

I appreciate you admitting bias. I guess I'm a bit biased in the opposite direction. We'll figure out something that works.

I'll come back tomorrow with more. The Eddie Tour (talk) 23:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

One more point about the page history, in case it's relevant to your thinking: the paragraph about FTX Future Fund predates my edits. All I did was a cut-paste it into the now-removed "Controversies" section. I intend to edit & expand it, including with MacAskill's own response and apology. The Eddie Tour (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Article Generally Reads Like a Hagiography, Should Discuss FTX Involvement More

The article largely reads like a hagiography of MacAskill. The most notable thing about MacAskill is his association with FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried, which is well-documented by reliable sources. MacAskill's association with Bankman-Fried arguably greatly increased his prominence as an academic and philosopher, so it does not make sense to talk about MacAskill as an academic and philosopher divorced from his association with Bankman-Fried or to treat his work as an academic separately from his association with Bankman-Fried and FTX. I added a bit of additional discussion about that topic, but more content is needed. A page about someone who is most notable for one particular thing should contain more content on the reason the person is notable. Nogburt (talk) 13:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)