This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Anima was embroiled in a Twitter controversy in wake of the resignation of Timnit Gebru from Google. In a heated discussion with the Twitter community Anima posted a list of Twitter users
Anima later left Twitter. She later posted this blog explaining her departure from Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.144.191 ( talk) 23:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hellpresearch ( talk) 09:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Copying from the wikipedia policies : ""Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." To me it seems clear that this can be quoted Hellpresearch ( talk) 21:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This controversy made the front page of Hacker News. Twice.
Geekwire covered the story: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/retired-uw-computer-science-professor-embroiled-twitter-spat-ai-ethics-cancel-culture/
Others:
If this doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, then nothing does
Rendall ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Issues with potentially controversial material in recent addition:
Further, as mentioned above the question of due weight and whether the content is above tabloid journalism is relevant. Since BLP sets a strict standard on sources, and explicitly sets a policy that generally unreliable sources should not be used as information about living persons, the added opinion article content fails to meet the standard for inclusion in BLP. Tunkki-1970 ( talk) 13:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
All the three points made above are wrong:
Please don't remove true and relevant content just for political reasons. -- ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 14:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
andThat set off the beginning of a long exchange between Domingos and Anima Anandkumar, a professor at Caltech and director of machine learning research at NVIDIA who led a petition to change the name of the conference.
The focus of the Geekwire article is Domingos; that he had "a long exchange" with Anandkumar isn't WP:DUE for Anandkumar's biography. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)As of Tuesday, Anandkumar’s Twitter was no longer active. She declined to comment for this story. Update: Anandkumar posted a public apology on her blog Wednesday. She also said she deactivated her Twitter account “in the interest of my safety and to reduce anxiety for my loved ones.”
ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
To sum up: the Quillette source is not reliable; even if the site was reliable, the author of the piece is Domingos who was part of the dispute. The only coverage by a reliable source is the Geekwire article, which gives one sentence to the dispute between Domingos and Anandkumar, insufficient to support this being WP:DUE for inclusion in this article (although there is a good argument for adding content to Pedro Domingos). Much of the proposed edit isn't supported by any of the sources, even the tweets, but is instead WP:OR. Unless there is more coverage of this dispute by independent, reliable sources, it doesn't belong in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
In an attempt to add content in a way consistent with WP policies, and based on proper sources, I've added a completely new write-up. Let me know if there is anything wrong in this edit -- I'm happy to learn WP. ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 18:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing in the archived tweets support "controversial" or "disciplinary action". Nothing in the blog post supports "This was in response to prof. Domingos' position in relation to introducing a process of ethics review for submissions to the NeurIPS conference" nor does it support "Backlash forced prof. Anandkumar to delete her Twitter account and to issue". Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)In December 2020, Prof. Anandkumar made controversial Twitter comments suggesting that followers engage in disciplinary action towards a list of Twitter users that have liked or supported comments from prof. Pedro Domingos [1], and whom she had personally blocked. This was in response to prof. Domingos' position in relation to introducing a process of ethics review for submissions to the NeurIPS conference. Backlash forced prof. Anandkumar to delete her Twitter account and to issue an apology. [2]
Requested editors at BLP noticeboard to participate in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Anima was embroiled in a Twitter controversy in wake of the resignation of Timnit Gebru from Google. In a heated discussion with the Twitter community Anima posted a list of Twitter users
Anima later left Twitter. She later posted this blog explaining her departure from Twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.144.191 ( talk) 23:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Hellpresearch ( talk) 09:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Copying from the wikipedia policies : ""Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." To me it seems clear that this can be quoted Hellpresearch ( talk) 21:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
This controversy made the front page of Hacker News. Twice.
Geekwire covered the story: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/retired-uw-computer-science-professor-embroiled-twitter-spat-ai-ethics-cancel-culture/
Others:
If this doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, then nothing does
Rendall ( talk) 01:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Issues with potentially controversial material in recent addition:
Further, as mentioned above the question of due weight and whether the content is above tabloid journalism is relevant. Since BLP sets a strict standard on sources, and explicitly sets a policy that generally unreliable sources should not be used as information about living persons, the added opinion article content fails to meet the standard for inclusion in BLP. Tunkki-1970 ( talk) 13:43, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
All the three points made above are wrong:
Please don't remove true and relevant content just for political reasons. -- ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 14:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
There is consensus that Quillette is generally unreliable for facts, with non-trivial minorities arguing for either full deprecation or "considerations apply". Quillette is primarily a publication of opinion, and thus actual usage in articles will usually be a question of whether or not it is WP:DUE for an attributed opinion rather than whether it is reliable for a factual claim.Schazjmd (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
andThat set off the beginning of a long exchange between Domingos and Anima Anandkumar, a professor at Caltech and director of machine learning research at NVIDIA who led a petition to change the name of the conference.
The focus of the Geekwire article is Domingos; that he had "a long exchange" with Anandkumar isn't WP:DUE for Anandkumar's biography. Schazjmd (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)As of Tuesday, Anandkumar’s Twitter was no longer active. She declined to comment for this story. Update: Anandkumar posted a public apology on her blog Wednesday. She also said she deactivated her Twitter account “in the interest of my safety and to reduce anxiety for my loved ones.”
ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
To sum up: the Quillette source is not reliable; even if the site was reliable, the author of the piece is Domingos who was part of the dispute. The only coverage by a reliable source is the Geekwire article, which gives one sentence to the dispute between Domingos and Anandkumar, insufficient to support this being WP:DUE for inclusion in this article (although there is a good argument for adding content to Pedro Domingos). Much of the proposed edit isn't supported by any of the sources, even the tweets, but is instead WP:OR. Unless there is more coverage of this dispute by independent, reliable sources, it doesn't belong in this article. Schazjmd (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References
In an attempt to add content in a way consistent with WP policies, and based on proper sources, I've added a completely new write-up. Let me know if there is anything wrong in this edit -- I'm happy to learn WP. ElPikacupacabra ( talk) 18:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Nothing in the archived tweets support "controversial" or "disciplinary action". Nothing in the blog post supports "This was in response to prof. Domingos' position in relation to introducing a process of ethics review for submissions to the NeurIPS conference" nor does it support "Backlash forced prof. Anandkumar to delete her Twitter account and to issue". Schazjmd (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)In December 2020, Prof. Anandkumar made controversial Twitter comments suggesting that followers engage in disciplinary action towards a list of Twitter users that have liked or supported comments from prof. Pedro Domingos [1], and whom she had personally blocked. This was in response to prof. Domingos' position in relation to introducing a process of ethics review for submissions to the NeurIPS conference. Backlash forced prof. Anandkumar to delete her Twitter account and to issue an apology. [2]
Requested editors at BLP noticeboard to participate in the discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
References