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)

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. Actualcpscm (talk) 22:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

References

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)

Where are you getting all this from? SBF didn't even have a Wikipedia page until 2021 (while MacAskill has had one since 2013). So the new edit "He is known for his association with and support for Samuel Bankman-Fried" doesn't seem right. Schweet (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

If you want more numbers, look at Google Trends for searches of his name. "ftx" features in the top 22 related queries once and it's 10th; Bankman-Fried or SBF aren't on there at all. The top 22 related topics have nothing to do with Bankman-Fried. I really think this is more Recency Bias. Schweet (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Literally the only thing MacAskill is well known for is his association with Bankman-Fried, FTX, and Alameda. It would apear that his stature as an academic has also been a significant beneficiary of his association with FTX since at least 2019. The fact that he was also known in some obscure academic circles for other things should not overwhelm the primary reason for his notability.

Discussing him as an academic without giving significant discussion to his association with FTX would be an example of extreme undue weight. It would be like an article about Bill Gates giving overwhelming emphasis to his status as an apparently elite level minesweeper player or article about the American football player Kyler Murray which primarily focused on his baseball exploits. Bill Gates is apparently an elite level minesweeper player. Kyler Murray played college baseball and was drafted into the MLB. But one would not seriously view it as appropriate to consider those less notable aspects of their careers as the proper primary focus of an article about them.

I saw a note in the talk section above that someone was associated with the article's subject (and that you do not appear to be a registered user). Well, I appreciate that one's association with an article subject may engender passion, if you are associated with MacAskill or effective altruism, I would suggest that you sit this one out. Nogburt (talk) 15:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this is born out by the sources. I think this is a case of WP:RECENTISM. Sources such as this, this and this indicate this isn't what he's mainly known for. Tristario (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

These articles are all from mid-2022, and a quote from MacAskill in the Atlantic article seems to implicitly assumed that it is already known that Bankman-Fried is his most prominent and well-known adherent. One of the articles cites to a Vox article which discusses Bankman-Fried extensively.

They all also seem to be related to promoting a book that came out around that time. FTX collapsed in November 2022. We're also talking about a 35 year old, so what's "recentism" is all relative. He

He seems more well known for his association with FTX and Bankman-Fried than a book published in mid-2022 (or before).

And again, I think the Kyler Murray baseball-football analogy applies. For many, their most notable activity happens to be among their more recent. Nogburt (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Even the coverage of him in relation to FTX does not treat his connection to FTX as the primary thing that makes him notable. And if we look at sources further back they give even less weight to the FTX connection eg this, this, this and this. He's simply not primarily known for his connection to FTX and if you don't just look at the most recent sources most of the coverage of him hasn't been in relation to that. Tristario (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

If you do a google news search and narrow the results to before 2022 there are many, many results (probably hundreds) about him that have nothing to do with FTX (such as this or this, as more examples). It's just not true at all to say that he's known for that connection. Tristario (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I promised above to add more content & sources, but got busy. It looks like someone else has added a bit more about FTX has been added under "Charities", which is a good start.

Nogburt is correct that the mentorship of Bankman-Fried is a notable fact that deserves more prominence, but I think "hagiography" is overstating the case. The page content prior to my edits this month was a fairly good coverage of MacAskill's life as it was known before 2022, and his notable contributions within the domains of philosophy, philanthropy, and popular nonfiction. I didn't have any issues with it as such. The new info from last year isn't that he lost notability in those domains, but rather that he has gained notability in others -- cryptocurrency, financial history, and the biggest M&A story of 2022. It was reasonable to add content covering these.

What remains to be done, in my opinion, is (1) to round out the FTX content and (2) to add a sentence or two to the summary at the top.

(1) The paragraph about FTX does not fully fit under the "Charities" topic, since his relationship with Bankman-Fried extended beyond any particular charity, to include giving him life advice and establishing business contacts. I would probably move it to its own section, called something like "Mentorship of Sam Bankman-Fried", and give a more specific (well-sourced) start date to their relationship. For balance, I would also like to quote from MacAskill's tweets condemning the alleged fraud. (If he has apologized or discussed FTX in a venue more formal than Twitter, that might a better source to quote, but I'm not finding any such statement.)

(2) The intro section should include a sentence or two summarizing the Bankman-Fried connection. As I said above, there are many domains that take interest in MacAskill's life, and for some of these, the FTX connection is the most notable fact.

Unfortunately, if you inspire hundreds of millions of dollar of charitable giving (that were actually donated, not pledged then evaporated), but you also inspire and allegedly enable an 8 billion dollar financial crime, then any summary of your most prominent impacts upon the world, as measured in dollars, must mention that crime. The Eddie Tour (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

That all sounds mostly reasonable. It should probably get its own subsection under "Career", I think. In terms of the summary at the top - it should follow WP:LEDE, so it should summarize the body with appropriate weight. I think given that most of the body isn't about this, and the vast majority of coverage in reliable sources doesn't relate to this, the mention in the lede should be brief, and it should only be there if the lede is summarizing the other things in the body too

Also inspire and allegedly enable an 8 billion dollar financial crime seems a bit strong, the Time article on it notes No one has alleged criminal behavior on the part of top EA figures. None of the people who raised concerns about Bankman-Fried to EA leaders in 2018 and 2019 say they warned about specific criminal activity, nor did they foresee the size and scope of the alleged fraud at the heart of the FTX collapse. Tristario (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Good point, absolutely worth clarifying what I meant here. The "inspire" is the more thoroughly supported verb here, and by "enable" I didn't mean any direct complicity. At most, the Time sources suggest MacAskill had bad judgement under incomplete information that inadvertently enabled the fraud. So perhaps I should have written, "inspire and allegedly inadvertently enable", even if that's a bit clunky.

Still, I stand by my point about relative impact in dollar terms, and FTX merits mention in the lede. Agreed it can be brief. I can give this a try soon. The Eddie Tour (talk) 07:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

After looking into the dates on sources and sources cited and some additional publications on MacAskill and Bankman-Fried, the problem here seems worse than I initially realized. This article is heavily overweight on sources and claims from MacAskill himself as well as from articles from mid-2022, when MacAskill was supposedly spending heavily on PR. Even if these early and mid-2022 articles are from ordinarily reliable sources, that they may have been in one way or another solicited or hustled would seem to make them unreliable. There are numerous articles on Bankman-Fried paying media outlets. This spending appears to have also benefited EA as well as MacAskill. If all of the content that either cited to MacAskill himself or to mid-2022 articles from before the FTX collapse were to come out, not a lot would be left. Nogburt (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Have you done a search on google news for MacAskill and narrowed the results to before 2022? There are hundreds of articles about Macaskill in reliable sources from before FTX. And I should remind you that WP:BLP applies to talk pages as well. Tristario (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nogburt, I think I should leave others to weigh in on your more substantial addition of the "third party" template to the top of this article, but you've also just made two "minor" edits that are both quite clearly incorrect. Someone has thankfully already corrected one of them, but MacAskill is currently the Chair of the Advisory Board at GPI and Director of the Forethought Foundation for Global Priorities Research. Maybe instead of putting someone's roles in the past tense just because the references are now 1-3 years old, you should first check the organization's websites to see if they're still there? Schweet (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised by the claim that MacAskill is mainly known for the FTX/SBF association. Within the last eight or so months alone, I can count half a dozen articles in major publications, both critical and positive, that barely mention that or do not at all: The New Yorker, The Atlantic, NPR, Salon, Wired, and The New Republic. The FTX/SBF information is relevant and worthy of inclusion, but we need to be careful not to fall into a recentism trap. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:25, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, the existence of a PR effort as alleged by what appears to be a singular author on "Truth Dig" (?) is far from adequate grounds to discount coverage from some of the most prominent publications in the Anglosphere. WhinyTheYounger (WtY)(talk, contribs) 23:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

References