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

Thanks for your help and guidance. I agree that for now it's not worth it!

I didn't really have a preference to be honest! I was just curious and a  little confused by the fact that some posts and  one of the "further reading links" used the "anti-aging" terminology.

Thank you for point about the general format being "[Area] research" - that makes sense and will be useful to me for potential future wiki edits. Also thank you to the other comment for the "cancer research" analogy  - that makes sense too. 

Is it worth updating the style guide for the  "[Area] research"  convention or is it too niche and may add unnecessary bloat?

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)

May I ask for the reasoning for the title being "Aging research" as opposed to "Anti-aging research"? 

I must assume it's because the former is the name established in the academic literature? Or is it to maintain some kind of fact/value distinction? 

Thanks in advance!