As I'm sure many know, Utilitarianism and a lot of other scientific and Radical work was exposed to the world through the Westminster Review, a quarterly journal originally edited by Jeremy Bentham. The Review ceased publication in the early 20th century due to financial troubles, but it's been on my mind lately.

As someone looking to become more involved with the community and bring Utilitarianism to the masses, I'm considering trying to start up the Review as an ezine, with a simple website and perhaps an email newsletter. The journal would be "published" quarterly and primarily be composed of five to ten short articles by members of this community and the Wiki, or anyone else who felt up to it, alongside a few news stories, letters, or editors notes I would compile. The articles could be about anything related to Utilitarianism, Rationalism, or ethics, politics, and science in general.

What do you guys think? Would it work? Would anyone be interested in writing at least occasionally? I'm eager to get some feedback.

The Internet is a big place. Do you have any thoughts on how the journal would create added value that can't be done on the felicifia.com wiki? How about your ideas for attracting readers?

Some thoughts:

* Is there a set of content guidelines, a review process with editors, a style guide, preference for informal discussion or technical discussion or both? I ask because if it is quarterly, it will be very easy to forget about it unless there is a compelling reason to be interested in it. One journal that uses easy-to-read format to bring philosophy to the lay person is Think (subscription required, although free samples are available).

* Do you have any electronic typesetting skills (e.g., LaTeX) for producing PDF documents or will it be HTML?

* Can it start on the wiki page? For example, lesswrong.com made good use of wiki pages by creating "sequences," which are wiki pages that contain a brief introduction, then links to a collection of related wiki entries that are in the format of short articles. The same thing could be used to make journal issues (perhaps with an option to lock pages so that the content is stable--if need be).

* Do you think you can find people to contribute to it and people to read it (easier said than done)?

rehoot wrote:The Internet is a big place. Do you have any thoughts on how the journal would create added value that can't be done on the felicifia.com wiki? How about your ideas for attracting readers?

I view the journal as having a distinctly different role than a wiki. My hope is for the Review to serve primarily as a place for opinionated analysis and argument as opposed to reference. The Review would also provide direct commentary on current events, along with the possibility for humor and community information. In short, I hope the Review would act, like other magazines, as a source for interesting and new commentary and theories, not replace the work that has been done to create a reference in the Felicifia wiki, nor provide an expressly educational introduction.

rehoot wrote:Is there a set of content guidelines, a review process with editors, a style guide, preference for informal discussion or technical discussion or both?

I don't have a formal review process or content guidelines yet - I hope to get great feedback like yours to help refine those. As to editing, it's just me for now, which will limit the scope to a handful of pieces, totalling maybe 10 pages.

rehoot wrote:If it is quarterly, it will be very easy to forget about it unless there is a compelling reason to be interested in it.

I initially thought quarterly to keep a wide window for material - but I think your point is valid. Do you think another timeframe would work better?

rehoot wrote:One journal that uses easy-to-read format to bring philosophy to the lay person is Think (subscription required, although free samples are available).

Think is a quality publication - I'm picturing the Review being between that and the Libertarian publication Reason.

rehoot wrote:Do you have any electronic typesetting skills (e.g., LaTeX) for producing PDF documents or will it be HTML?

I have some experience with LyX and Scribus, and I plan to use one or both of those.

rehoot wrote:Can it start on the wiki page? For example, lesswrong.com made good use of wiki pages by creating "sequences," which are wiki pages that contain a brief introduction, then links to a collection of related wiki entries that are in the format of short articles. The same thing could be used to make journal issues (perhaps with an option to lock pages so that the content is stable--if need be).

Interesting idea, but though It seems that though sequences are an excellent way to use a wiki as a textbook or primer, I'm not sure it would provide the community building and opinionated analysis I think a journal could offer, though I'll admit I don't have a ton of experience with sequences. I obviously would love some or complete integration with the wiki, if they'll have me .

rehoot wrote: Do you think you can find people to contribute to it and people to read it (easier said than done)?

This is definitely the biggest challenge - the simple answer is I don't know. There are clearly people looking to discuss the topic, judging from the blogs, wikis, and forums - but I'm not sure if this type of opportunity will strike people's interest. Am I barking up the wrong tree?

It sounds like it could be a good idea. I doubt there's a big enough community in and around felicifia to read and write this sort of ezine. You'll have a greater chance at success the more forums and websites and interest groups you can involve. So it seems like now's the time to start thinking in detail about what content you would provide for what audience and how it'd differ from what's already on offer.

I've no objection with connecting a Westminster Review with Wiki Felicifia. My goals would be:
> to grow both projects and
> spread understanding of utilitarianism. (this is always my goal!)
If we want to connect them, I wonder how we would do it...

I have a general suggestion: it seems like a lot of free news material is made popular by google news. That's how you get new readers. So would your New Westminster Review have an html version as well as a pdf one?

southpointingchariot wrote:The Review would also provide direct commentary on current events, along with the possibility for humor and community information.

That sounds like something that might be easier to read than the wiki. There were some posts here about utilitarian comics--if you could recruit one of the artists, it would certainly attract a wider audience and maybe a few of those readers would read beyond the comic.

As for recruiting authors, you won't really know until you try recruiting. I tried a bit of recruiting, and it didn't go so well, but that is not one of my greatest skills—hopefully you can do better. One way to approach this would be to take lots of time to build the first issue, then use that example to attract some "celebrity" philosophers or journalists. Networking with other online groups or organizations would be useful if you design content that appeals to them (not sure how that would work for utilitarianism).

I don't know the full details of your interest in this project, but a complete package would include not only good content, but a marketing plan with a non-zero budget. I have no idea how that might work.

rehoot wrote:if you could recruit one of the artists, it would certainly attract a wider audience and maybe a few of those readers would read beyond the comic.

I'll definitely look into that

rehoot wrote:Networking with other online groups or organizations would be useful if you design content that appeals to them

Very good point - beyond wiki Felicifia, who would be the optimum targets to pursue?

RyanCarey wrote:You'll have a greater chance at success the more forums and websites and interest groups you can involve.

Who are the other big ones to look at involving?

RyanCarey wrote:So it seems like now's the time to start thinking in detail about what content you would provide for what audience and how it'd differ from what's already on offer.

I hope for the Review to offer opinionated analysis, commentary on current events, information about community happenings and events, alongside humor, cartoons, and perhaps even fiction. Obviously this would largely be done from a Utilitarian perspective, though I would also seek work by those challenging Utilitarian theory or arguments.

As to how the product would be unique, while the basic materials are of course already available, I hope for the Review to offer crisp and consistent quality in an easy to digest and attractive form. By taking some of the great thoughts and arguments made on this forum and around the web and transferring them to a more composed format, I hope to both add credibility to the substance and allow readers to avoid searching for quality material.

RyanCarey wrote:I've no objection with connecting a Westminster Review with Wiki Felicifia. My goals would be:
> to grow both projects and
> spread understanding of utilitarianism. (this is always my goal!)
If we want to connect them, I wonder how we would do it...

I'm fully on board with the goals... I'm also not sure how. I plan to set up a simple website by the end of the month, and perhaps then initial steps will seem a littler clearer. Please let me know if you have any technical or design ideas in this vein (or, I guess any other ).

RyanCarey wrote:I have a general suggestion: it seems like a lot of free news material is made popular by google news. That's how you get new readers. So would your New Westminster Review have an html version as well as a pdf one?

Great idea. Though a habitual Google News user, I'm not exactly sure how their system works, so I'll look into how to maximize that. Thanks for the feedback and please keep it coming!

I might be able to contribute occasionally, writing about stuff I know or am studying at the moment, which the coordinator can choose to publish, if he's okay with the content.

Mike Retriever wrote:I might be able to contribute occasionally, writing about stuff I know or am studying at the moment, which the coordinator can choose to publish, if he's okay with the content.

Great to hear Mike. We probably won't be up and running for a while, but I'll be keeping you in mind.

For what it's worth, I recently bought a domain with a similar purpose in mind - a general blog for hedonistic utilitarians to write public-oriented commentary on issues that concern them, which might also provide fodder for the Felicifia. I haven't had time to do anything except leave it fallow so far, but I wonder if it'd be worth combining the two projects, since they're quite similar-sounding. The URL name (after a bit of back and forth) ended up being carelessthought.org, as in 'careless thought costs lives' (with an element of self-parody)

Arepo wrote:For what it's worth, I recently bought a domain with a similar purpose in mind - a general blog for hedonistic utilitarians to write public-oriented commentary on issues that concern them, which might also provide fodder for the Felicifia. I haven't had time to do anything except leave it fallow so far, but I wonder if it'd be worth combining the two projects, since they're quite similar-sounding. The URL name (after a bit of back and forth) ended up being carelessthought.org, as in 'careless thought costs lives' (with an element of self-parody)

I'm eager to connect with other projects along the same lines, so the idea sounds great to me. "Carlessthought" would be an interesting domain name for the Westminster Review, but I suppose it make sense in its own way, and my budget of approximately 0 dollars thinks its perfect. Are you thinking of sharing space or do you want to jump on board with the zine model?

southpointingchariot wrote:Who are the other big ones to look at involving?

southpointingchariot wrote:beyond wiki Felicifia, who would be the optimum targets to pursue?

There are many philosophy site that contain a few posts on utilitarianism, but I'm not aware of others that focus exclusively on utilitarianism. Depending on the content of the journal, it might attract people who have a specific interest that relates to utilitarianism in some way, like animal rights activists; forums for general philosophy and science; environmentalists; peace activists; philosophy students; law students; debate forums; etc. For example, there might be forums for debating abortion, and some of those people might be interested in the pros and cons of using utilitarian arguments on that topic. The journal would need people who can write on the selected topics—or the topics would be defined after you find people to write on specific topics.

I’m reasonably flexible. That said (largely thinking as I type this), I don’t think it wouldn’t make much sense to put a zine called Westminster Review at a URL which doesn’t resemble it, so how attached to the name are you?

Re the actual structure, I’m also sceptical of trying to ape a print model too closely, eg with N ‘issues’ a year. It seems more appropriate on the web to put up new features as they come in – the main questions are probably how to structure that. Is there an editor (or editors), and if so, what’s his level of involvement? – does he put up basically everything submitted or veto, does he fact-check or proofread? If there’s an editor, can anyone submit posts (presumably if there isn’t it would have a specific set of authors, though it needn’t be too hard to get yourself added)?

There’s also the question of how much the site structures community involvement/technical aspect – is there some sort of karma system to make more popular posts appear more prominently a la Less Wrong, and does someone categorise each post somehow? (keyword tagging? If so by whom?)

Also, what would be the editorial line, inasmuch as there is one? I’m inclined to make it quite strictly hedonistic utilitarianism and all its subsets – preference utilitarians and their ilk often seem to want to pull in quite different directions, and fundamentally have a fairly different worldview, so might create quite a confused message. If we restrict it to hedonistic utilitarianism (or people who are willing to accept HU on whatever issue they’re thinking about), it should get less bogged down in ethical theory which, while it will surely play a part (and might be the main topic on which I end up writing) shouldn’t dominate if we want it to have any general appeal. This is a better place for PUs and HUs to argue about their differences.

I lean towards ease of use over editorial control, at least to begin with, for the pragmatic reason that its success will rely on getting a lot of authors – from a relatively small pool of people, all of who by definition have a lot of demands on their time. My original plan was just to have it as a community blog for HUs with some fairly simple blog software (Wordpress maybe, or just straightforward HTML as David Pearce uses – though that basically rules out comments), and to invite all the I know of to post on topics that interest them on it with no real editorial intervention. If it started that way, it could always evolve/be evolved into something else easily enough.

Penny for your thoughts.

I don’t think it wouldn’t make much sense to put a zine called Westminster Review at a URL which doesn’t resemble it, so how attached to the name are you?

The name is not everything, but its historical significance does hold value to me, and I think it has the right connotations for what I'm picturing.

Re the actual structure, I’m also sceptical of trying to ape a print model too closely, eg with N ‘issues’ a year.

While I'm not exactly sure how the scheduling will work, I think dropping the "issue" system looses some of the distinction that I hope this will eventually reach.

Is there an editor (or editors), and if so, what’s his level of involvement? – does he put up basically everything submitted or veto, does he fact-check or proofread?

I'm thinking of a fairly collaborative model of editing, with some direct yeses and nos, and some factchecking and proofreading.

Also, what would be the editorial line, inasmuch as there is one?

My plan was for the description to be "A magazine covering Utlitarian thought and events," with little out and out strictness. I hope to have some critical pieces from non Utilitarians. I agree that ethical theory should not dominate the whole project, but here I'm inclined to rely on article selection as opposed to an editorial line. As a fairly strong HU myself, I would also be fine with PU pieces and some level of debate over time, as long as it did not overpower other issues.

My original plan was just to have it as a community blog for HUs with some fairly simple blog software (Wordpress maybe, or just straightforward HTML as David Pearce uses – though that basically rules out comments), and to invite all the I know of to post on topics that interest them on it with no real editorial intervention. If it started that way, it could always evolve/be evolved into something else easily enough.

Your description sounds very cool, but different than what I'm picturing. Do we have two different projects which can feed eachother, or could there be a two headed zine and community blog concept?

Hi again all,
If the W.M. Review is aimed at utilitarian thought specifically, then it seems unthinkable that it would not be married to felicifia. The benefit for the Review is that you would automatically gain a community who would discuss and dissect the articles, write letters to the editor and so on. The benefit for the forum is that we would have a cultural centrepiece through which people would discover the utilitarian community. The benefit to the love and understanding of utilitarianism is that it would be discovered and read by more people. I can only see wins all around. I wonder if you feel the same way. Here are a few initial collaborative suggestions:
1. Discussion: I will happily make a discussion thread for each issue or for several articles of Review.
2. Wiki feature articles: We could tie it in with a feature article system at Wiki Felicifia. In the review, we could nominate a 'feature article'. Then it'd get extra attention from the editors for several months. Next issue, at least part of the article is included in the review.
3. URLs: There's currently a forum and a wiki in the felicifia family. They're currently at felicifia.com and felicifia.org. Eventually,they'll come together to the same URL. It's good SEO (helps search engines find us). Your entire mission sounds so similar to ours that you might want to come to the same URL as well. Then, we would have 3 sites in the felicifia family. For example: forum.felicifia.com, wiki.felicifia.com and review.felicifia.com.
3b. There's a more ambitious way that we could deal with the URL issue. We could get a great URL then locate all three websites there. An ideal URL would be utilitarian.com if it is for sale. Old pages would redirect to the new address. Felicifia would undergo some rebranding. It could come out bigger and better.

By the way, I won't say anything specific about how Arepo's blog idea and SPC's zine idea can be brought together. Just that I think that the projects are similar at their core, and that their best chance at reaching their full potential is if they're joined!

The feature article idea sounds good. Everyone should be encouraged to contribute something and practice using the wiki interface.

Maybe we would could initialize a feature article with an outline and a few guidelines, then solicit contributions to the outline from the forum. I say this because it might be easier for new wiki contributors to add an entry to an outline than to read a long article and try to find a place to insert the few lines that they can contribute. Perhaps the article would stay in outline mode for three weeks, then be open to full editing (at least the guideline will say as much). In the first few weeks, maybe the guideline will suggest that people create entries that are of most interest to them or to which they can contribute. Perhaps there would be a recommended maximum contribution of around 6 outline entries per person so that the work retains a collaborative feel (as opposed to letting me enter 374 outline entries nested 8 levels deep thereby scaring every potential contributor). After the three weeks, then there is no limit. The guidelines should also contain the link to the editing-help page (and eventually the guidelines could become a wiki template). If it grows to span several pages, then that would be fine.

Maybe the feature article is the way to gradually build the foundations that lead to the Westminster Review! It will take time to recruit contributors and to formalize the structure of the Review (it could easily take a year or two to gain momentum).

southpointingchariot: the extended time frame would give you time to do things like design a web page or print-layout, recruit, write a purpose-statement or other such description of the Review, and get a feel for what it takes to collaborate on something like this.

also: I like the name "Westminster Review" for historical reasons. I like the quarterly format in the long run, but in the short run there will be little alternative to working on the the feature article or something like it (due to limited contributors).

Arepo's hedonism vs preference utilitarianism: this is the type of decision that editors have to face. You could have sections that come from different perspectives—assuming that you have enough contributors to warrant it. I would be disinclined to contribute to an edited work that prohibited critical philosophical discussion, but if you want to relegate critical analysis to the back of the journal, that is good enough for me. I don't know your background, but critical analysis forms the basis of merit in analytic philosophy, although it is technical enough to scare away the lay person. I previously mentioned Think as an example of a journal that presents philosophical arguments in simple enough terms that the lay person can understand (I was not referring to the typography of that journal). In other words, you might specify that the journal will be written in non-technical terms and that critical analysis will go at the end (which might imply that you would have to describe the other type of content that you want).

As for print vs online: This is the 21st century! Let's make both. I like the idea of a nicely formatted printable document that services as a static reference point for future articles. It might also help to convey value and the idea that the journal is worth keeping. The online version with comments and such, also helps to engage a larger audience.

southpointingchariot wrote:While I'm not exactly sure how the scheduling will work, I think dropping the "issue" system looses some of the distinction that I hope this will eventually reach.

What kind of distinction? Do you know of any successful web-based publications that use a periodical system? It seems atavistic to me.

I'm thinking of a fairly collaborative model of editing, with some direct yeses and nos, and some factchecking and proofreading.

My fear with this is it's quite a strong disincentive for people to submit anything, which could make life difficult when there's already a very small pool of humanity to draw from. And because it means you have fewer pieces going up, it means there's less draw for people to come back, and thus a smaller total audience, which feeds back into reduced disincentive for writing in the first place.

Your description sounds very cool, but different than what I'm picturing. Do we have two different projects which can feed each other, or could there be a two headed zine and community blog concept?

Not sure. It would be easy for them to end up competing if they were separate, which again seems like a bad thing given the limited set of readers/writers. I'd prefer to see them as a combined project, though I'm not sure how we'd combine them, given the difference between our views.

Ryan wrote:If the W.M. Review is aimed at utilitarian thought specifically, then it seems unthinkable that it would not be married to felicifia.

Agreed.

Just that I think that the projects are similar at their core, and that their best chance at reaching their full potential is if they're joined!

Also agreed, in theory. A drawback is that Felicifia is and should IMO continue to be a place for anyone with utilitarian leanings - HU, PU, DU, prioritarian, general consequentialist etc. WR fits that idea, but an HU blog doesn't really. I could make the blog more generally U in theory, but there are already quite a few utilitarian blogs around, and I'd like to provide (perhaps optimistically) something more central, which I think means a) multiple authors but b) fairly united voice.

rehoot wrote:I would be disinclined to contribute to an edited work that prohibited critical philosophical discussion

*All* works do this though, either by choosing select authors, or by the more explicitly draconian (but maybe more honest?) method of having an editorial line that pieces must adhere to to be accepted. I think it's unfair to single out a multi-author publication that (openly) selects authors based on a shared view and being lacking in this respect. Should we invite continental philosophers to contribute too, and have the whole thing degenerate into a turgid mess of tedious argument and misunderstanding, or do you think there's some fundamental dividing line between them and analytic philosophers and no analagous line between utilitarians and non-utilitarian APs?

I don't know your background, but critical analysis forms the basis of merit in analytic philosophy, although it is technical enough to scare away the lay person.

My (most relevant) background is a ugrad in philosophy. I didn't continue in it mainly because, despite finding some areas of merit in AP (and none in CP), I thought it was still too characterised by adherence to too many unjustified/unjustifiable views - like the idea of 'plausibility' as a gauge of anything except the weather when one first thought about the topic. Yet variants of 'not plausible' are still by far the most common criticism types I see and hear from professional philosophers attacking util.

I'm not averse to any critical analysis, but contrary to popular belief, I think there are cases where the best critique is internal. If any non-utils ever mount an attack on util that's actually original, I'd be keen to post it on any relevant venue. But when my prior expectations of a given critique saying anything we haven't heard and refuted a hundred times each are so low, it doesn't seem worth clogging up the output for. Having said all this, given that I would like to post an argument for util myself, I clearly need to give people room to criticise it - but the most cutting criticisms I've ever had when I've tried to argue this kind of thing have been from other HUs.

I'll add that I think your comment assumes that this should be an analytic philosophers' blog. I think it should be a utilitarians' blog, which is significantly different - it should serve the cause of utilitarianism, not of AP. And util is generally better served by applying it rather than by arguing over whether it's 'true'. Science blogs don't discuss scientific method much - they tend to just assume some version of the scientific method and get on with telling you its conclusions, only occasionally delving into underlying philosophy. I think a util blog should have the same weighting - not only does it make its comments more relevant for utilitarians themselves, it makes it a lot more interesting to read for the average person who wants to think about things that might affect his/her life. Ideally it would be a combination of physical and social science, economics, philosophy and maths, all passed through the filter of being relevant to someone at least sympathetic to util.

Arepo wrote:I think your comment assumes that this should be an analytic philosophers' blog.

That is not my intent. I was saying that I would avoid a publication that prohibited critical analysis, not that it should be exclusively critical analysis. I generally have low regard for continental philosophy, but I have no objection to including it in the proposed journal as long as there is some room for critical analysis. Creating interest is important, and obviously that requires some (or most of the) content outside analytic philosophy.

As for discussion of which path is the most effective, I suspect that there will be some trial and error and that the early content will be mostly limited by the number of contributors as opposed to the validity of a grand plan. If the effort fails, we can try a different course. If it succeeds along one path and ideological differences persist, there might be a broad enough foundation to support a second journal.

I guess in the end it should come down to what readers say they want. So I’d be inclined to start off without much external criticism (as I say, I’m a big fan of internal criticism, which actually tends to haul me up on logical errors/ambiguities rather than try to introduce premises I don’t accept), but if it got any kind of following, to just ask the readers whether they have any interest in that kind of thing. Maybe I’m projecting too much – I know when I hung around atheist forums I never had any interest in the ‘should you be an atheist’ threads, because they inevitably retrod old ground. Obviously people on the margins might be interested in/persuaded by such discussions, but I think they’re better suited for (and indeed should be encouraged on) the forum, where we could even have a ‘formal debates’ section if people were interested (see FRDB for the kind of thing I’m thinking of).

Love the broad idea, but why the outdated (and, within 10 years, positively archaic) print model? Three months is an extraordinarily long time to wait between issues, plus the PDF/print format prevents the sort of immediate, robust feedback that we demand and expect.

My vote is for a something between the OP's proposal and Arepo's notion.

I'd like to see an authoritative, carefully curated, community blog on utilitarianism (not just HU) covering the topic from all angles. A centre on the web for provocative/important/emerging ideas (and also less serious stuff), described in an accessible, informal way. sciencebasedmedicine.org, launched by skeptic neurologist Dr Steven Novella, has done this very successfully for what was previously a rather obscure offshoot of evidence-based medicine.

If there's strong feeling on it (as I get the impression there is), I could open the blog to all utils, and just ask that they talk primarily about applications.

I'm glad to see I've generated some discussion!

I love the integration with the forum and review.felificia.com ideas. It's simple, practical, and connected. The feature article is an interesting concept, but the wiki articles seem more about giving an objective review of a subject as opposed to the opinionated argument and analysis I think the Review should be about, but perhaps there's a way to make that work. I'm not but so stuck on the exact format the articles are released (issue vs individual, html vs pdf), as I think the right structure will change and evolve over time. What is important to me is:

1. Quality assurance - Articles are at least somewhat fact-checked, proofread, and substantive - even if that means slower production.

2. Variety of Viewpoints - Articles do more than just argue the mindset of an individual or small set of people, but present viewpoints across the utilitarian perspective (and yes, somewhat rarely, from outside of it).

3. Variety of Style - In the long run, though perhaps not at first, I want a structure that can include scholarly essays, journalistic articles, op-eds, humor, letters and feedback, comics, perhaps even book/film reviews, short fiction and more.

4. I would quite like to stick the name as well.

As long as the concept allows for those things, I'm willing to be flexible (which admittedly is only so flexible). I've also freed up a bit of budget for a simple URL reservation in the near future and a new webdesign program, so once the concept gets a little clearer here I'll be making a new post along with any collaborators about the site. Please keep the discussion coming - I'll need all the community support I can get to make this happen.

So, several months have passed. SPC, what have been your thoughts about the idea of making a New Westminster Review in 2012?

I'm still totally for it - I've found a nice webhost, and though I've dropped the idea of a issue model as the primary system, I'd still prefer a semi-editorial system. I guess I kinda dropped it because I wasn't sure if there was much real interest. But if there is, I'm ready to get started. I'd be willing to do the web design (something simple), but I'd need at least one person interested in editing alongside me, and a few who have an interest in submitting pieces.

Ok, cool. It's starting to sound more like a joint user blog, something in the vein of the old Felicifia, now.

Since this discussion began, the 80000 hours blog has begun. Edited by our very own Arepo. It has some great contributions from several utilitarians already, including Carl Shulman, Katja Grace and Boris Yakubchik. The entire premise of the organisation is quite utilitarian. I think Arepo would be the best person to talk to about the experience of sourcing writers of original utilitarian material.

Yeah, for the time being I've dropped the idea of setting up my own blog in favour of the 80K one. It's not explicitly utilitarian, but in practice most of the members seem to be.

(it's also the reason I've been quiet around here, recently - the blog is eating much of my time. Still around, though )