Talk:80,000 Hours

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Organizations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Organizations. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject England (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability[edit] (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC) The page now cites several major news organizations that have provided significant coverage of 80,000 Hours. Perhaps we should remove the notability tag now.

Wikipedia is not a listing of every charity that's been talked about one or twice in the news. I don't see how this is a notable organisation just because a few wiki editors are fans. (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • First, a declaration of potential conflict of interest: I am a former employee of 80,000 Hours, and I am currently employed by the Centre for Effective Altruism, the organisation that contains 80,000 Hours. However I have not worked for 80,000 Hours for several months, and was not asked to contribute to this talk page. The reason I am engaging in this conversation is because as a former employee of 80,000 Hours I know of several articles about 80,000 Hours that have not been considered when weighing up its notability. Second, I have not engaged in a deletion discussion before, though I have been editing wikipedia for many years, so please let me know if I am not engaging with this discussion in the correct manner.
You have argued that this article is not notable. WP:N states "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it". Thus I hope that by listing a number of independent sources which have written about 80,000 Hours I will counter your claim. The following sources have written independently either about 80,000 Hours or about earning-to-give, an idea that 80,000 Hours first popularised. All of these sources directly mention 80,000 Hours. Note that I have copied this list from here:
  1. TED talk: Peter Singer: The why and how of effective altruism
  2. BBC online: Banking ‘can be an ethical career choice’
  3. BBC Radio 4: Today programme with Ian Hislop
  4. Washington Post: Join Wall Street - Save the World
  5. Daily Mail: Young professionals joining Wall Street save world
  6. CNBC: Wall Street Saves the World!
  7. NPR: Want to give back? Get a job on Wall Street
  8. Wall Street Journal Careers Blog: On Our Radar
  9. Washington Post Online: Join Wall Street. Save The World.
  10. Chronicle of Philanthropy: A New Donor Movement Seeks to Put Data Ahead of Passion
  11. Daily Mail Online: The young professionals who believe their best chance at trying to save the world is by joining Wall Street and making millions
  12. Prospect Magazine: Being Superman
  13. Philanthropy UK: Oxford students start philanthropic movement
  1. Euromoney: Impact Investing: the big business of small donors
  2. Third Sector: Banking can be more ethical than the voluntary sector, says Oxford academic
  3. Africa Development and Politics: Who does more for development: bankers or ‘aid workers’?
  4. Ethics in Public and Professional Life: Banker vs. Aid Worker
  5. High Flying Ladies: Doing good by getting rich
  6. Desert News: Are you underemployed? Here’s how you can improve your job prospects
  7. National Review: Rise of the Singerians
According to WP:AUD "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." Thus I would argue that 80,000 Hours is "notable" by Wikipedia's standards. Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Note that some of this articles discuss William MacAskill in more detail than they do 80,000 Hours, however the article William MacAskill was previously merged with 80,000 Hours. Thus if people think that these articles are evidence of notability for William MacAskill and not 80,000 Hours then perhaps these articles should be un-merged in future? (Note that I am not proposing this, I am simply explaining why these articles are listed above).
  • I have not removed the notability flag myself due to the potential conflict of interest, however if others find the above argument convincing then I would be in favour of removing the notability flag? Niel.Bowerman (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I have tried to add some of the above media references to the article, however I could not find any obviously unsubstantiated statements in the article that could be referenced to any of the above articles. After reading WP:NOTABILITY I have concluded that this is OK, and the article is still notable. In particular WP:NOTABILITY states "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Also, because the question of notability and deletion seem so inter-related I am assuming that I should be copy-and-pasting my comments in both sections, but please let me know if that is not the case. Thanks, Niel.Bowerman (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits by the organisation[edit]

I see that user Sir Paul has been editing this article, but works for the charity in question. Wikipedia is not a listing or directory for every charity to advertise themselves. Please refrain from further edits. (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand your complaint. I do work for 80,000 Hours, as I indicate on my Wikipedia page, but I am a long-term Wikipedia editor with thousands of edits under my name. I remind you that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. Moreover, my recent edits simply consisted in correcting typos and a factually incorrect statement (I invite readers to take a look at the history page and check this for themselves). If you think this counts as an "advertisement" of 80,000 Hours, please explain why. In the meantime, I'm reverting to my most recent version. Sir Paul (talk) 06:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I also note that most of my edits to this article were made before I started working for the organization, and reflect my general interest in effective altruism and related topics. I encourage anyone to visit my profile page and check the list of articles I have contributed to. Sir Paul (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


The article has been proposed for deletion based on the comments by Please use this section for discussion. JohnQuincyAdams (talk) 16:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)