I think the idea is to assign credences to plausible theories, where plausible is taken to mean some subset of the following:

• Has been argued for in good faith by professional philosophers
• Has relevant and well-reasoned arguments in favour of it
• Accords at least partially with moral intuitions
• Is consistent/parsimonious/not metaphysically untoward/precise/ etc (the usual desiderata for explanations/theories)
• Concerns the usual domain of moral theories(values, agents, decisions, etc)

Another equivalent way to proceed is to consider all possible theories, but the credence given to the (completely) implausible theories is 0 or sufficiently close to it.

Is there a potential naming collision with https://www.asteriskjournal.org ? Are you going with 'asteriskmag' as the domain name perhaps?

Human Challenge Trials as a wiki entry(less so as a tag)

An idea I think a sizeable portion of people here are sympathetic to and the entry could act as a good companion to entries like 1Day Sooner and COVID-19 pandemic

Thanks Pablo! Looks great!  I really appreciate your work on the wiki.

Windfall Clause (under Global Catastrophic Risk (AI))

Justification:

1. Important as a wiki topic to give short description of this policy proposal  and relevant links/papers/discussion- as it seems like an important output of AI Governance literature/studies.
2. Tag as potential future posts may discuss/critique the idea(e.g. second post below) 

Posts that it could apply to:

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/iYCAoP3JgXxGAvMrr/fhi-report-the-windfall-clause-distributing-the-benefits-of

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/wBzfLyfJFfocmdrwL/the-windfall-clause-has-a-remedies-problem

https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/eCihFiTmg748Mnoac/cullen-o-keefe-the-windfall-clause-sharing-the-benefits-of

Thank your for this piece Lizka!

To what extent do you agree with the following?

Strong identities  are epistemically sub-optimal(i.e. if you are an agent whose exclusive concern is to hold true beliefs, then holding strong identities is likely to harm that project) - but they may be socially expedient (perhaps necessary) in that they facilitate cooperation (by  encapsulating views and motives)

Patient philanthropy?

Adding one more (hopefully relevant) link:

Dylan Matthews on “Global poverty has fallen, but what should we conclude from that?”

which is more or less a podcast version of the Vox Article by Dylan Matthew, where the link (and Hickel's response) can be found in Max_Daniel's very helpful list of links.

Hey! Your link sends us to this very post. Is this intentional?

Thank you for this post! Very interesting.

(1) Is this a fair/unfair summary of the argument?

P1 We should be indifferent on anti-speciesist grounds whether humans or some other intelligence life form enjoy a grand future.

P2 The risk of extinction of only humans is strictly lower than the risk of extinction of humans + all future possible (non human) intelligent life form.

C Therefore we should revise downwards the value of avoiding the former/raise the value of the latter.

(2) Is knowledge about current evolutionary trajectories of non-human animals today likely to completely inform us about 're-evolution'? What are the relevant considerations?