We could use NPOV if necessary. E.g., we could note that “many have expressed an interest in techniques for reducing akrasia, and in gaining a better understanding of akrasia”, perhaps with links to the relevant LW comments. Similarly, we could note that “there has been much discussion of anthropics/Newcomb/whatever, and most commenters seem to agree on (a), (b), and (c), but there remains quite a bit of controversy on how to coherently conceptualize (d)”...
I think the basic technique for agreeing about what should be on a wiki, is just to summarize the spread of disagreement when significant disagreement occurs on a particular point.
OK, let me come at it from another angle. How are we going to agree as an editing community on what should be in a list of what hasn’t been written?
We could use NPOV if necessary. E.g., we could note that “many have expressed an interest in techniques for reducing akrasia, and in gaining a better understanding of akrasia”, perhaps with links to the relevant LW comments. Similarly, we could note that “there has been much discussion of anthropics/Newcomb/whatever, and most commenters seem to agree on (a), (b), and (c), but there remains quite a bit of controversy on how to coherently conceptualize (d)”...
I think the basic technique for agreeing about what should be on a wiki, is just to summarize the spread of disagreement when significant disagreement occurs on a particular point.