Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 22, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 25 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I worry that the name of the article is not specific enough. Should it be akin to "Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI"? I also wonder if this really needs an article when it could just be in the OpenAI article? — Panamitsu (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This event doesn't seem to deserve it's own stand-alone article. All relevant facts can be reported on existing pages for Sam Altman or OpenAI. Coffmanesq ( talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Jenny8lee: I noticed you started rewriting the page. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I believe that your rewrite conflicts with the manual of style. Per WP:WBA, Wikipedia maintains a neutral tone devoid of colloquialisms—e.g., "history of the world"—and it is preferable to write paragraphs longer than one or two sentences. This is a style that juxtaposes with journalistic writing. As the writer of many of the rewritten sections, I cannot neutrally speak on whether or not they were in line with the manual of style, but I can attest to my attempt to match that and to write as impersonally as possible. Again, not willing to start an argument or an edit war, just providing a secondary perspective. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI → Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI – This is an article with a descriptive title, whose scope has been extended to cover the full arc of events after his removal and including his reinstatment; the title now reads oddly given this arc. ciphergoth ( talk) 14:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the article would be greatly improved by reorganizing it with the following structure:
In other words, I'm suggesting that the "Events leading up to the removal" be renamed, as "Theories for removal" better describes the content of this section. Mokadoshi ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mokadoshi ( talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
{{Lead too short}}
tag. Specifically, I would suggest you add the quote "consistently candid in his communications"to the lead, as that is a quote that was widely shared when discussing and speculating on this event.
Altman quipped that the OpenAI board...
reportedlyand
purportedlyas it's a form of editorializing. For example,
The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos", according to The New York Times.can be changed to simply
According to The New York Times, the removal left OpenAI in "chaos".(For this specific quote, bonus points if you say who at The New York Times said this, but it's not required for this review.)
By Saturday morning, the company was in chaos, according to a half dozen current and former employees...By using "reportedly" you're casting doubt on the journalist's sources, which is editorializing unless this claim is refuted by other reliable sources. If we're going to do that, why not do it across the whole article, since most of the article is based on journalists quoting anonymous sources? As a random example,
According to The Information, Altman is planning a new artificial intelligence venture with Brockman- this is also based on anonymous sources. Mokadoshi ( talk) 16:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology.Close, but the source doesn't give any title for Toner.
As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billionVerified with source.
"best bromance in tech"Verified with source.
Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes"Verified with source.
OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications"Verified with source.
the removal was not due to "malfeasance"Verified with source.
"did not mandate removal"Verified with source.
The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos"Verified with source.
should he "start going off"Verified with source.
Musk called the turmoil "troubling" and that he had "mixed feelings" towards Altman.Verified with source.
Altman was a "hero to [him]"Optional: Close, but he said "Altman is a hero of mine." I think it's better if you just say the full quote, or shorten the quote to "hero".
misbehaving childrenVerified with source.
OpenAI had "stunningly poor governance"Verified with source.
Altman is "welcome in France"Verified with source.
Nadella "pulled off a coup of his own" in hiring AltmanVerified with source.
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 22, 2024, reviewed version). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2023. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
On 25 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
I worry that the name of the article is not specific enough. Should it be akin to "Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI"? I also wonder if this really needs an article when it could just be in the OpenAI article? — Panamitsu (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
This event doesn't seem to deserve it's own stand-alone article. All relevant facts can be reported on existing pages for Sam Altman or OpenAI. Coffmanesq ( talk) 18:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@ Jenny8lee: I noticed you started rewriting the page. I'm not going to revert your edits, but I believe that your rewrite conflicts with the manual of style. Per WP:WBA, Wikipedia maintains a neutral tone devoid of colloquialisms—e.g., "history of the world"—and it is preferable to write paragraphs longer than one or two sentences. This is a style that juxtaposes with journalistic writing. As the writer of many of the rewritten sections, I cannot neutrally speak on whether or not they were in line with the manual of style, but I can attest to my attempt to match that and to write as impersonally as possible. Again, not willing to start an argument or an edit war, just providing a secondary perspective. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky ( talk) 15:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Removal of Sam Altman from OpenAI → Removal and reinstatement of Sam Altman at OpenAI – This is an article with a descriptive title, whose scope has been extended to cover the full arc of events after his removal and including his reinstatment; the title now reads oddly given this arc. ciphergoth ( talk) 14:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky ( talk) 17:34, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the article would be greatly improved by reorganizing it with the following structure:
In other words, I'm suggesting that the "Events leading up to the removal" be renamed, as "Theories for removal" better describes the content of this section. Mokadoshi ( talk) 21:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mokadoshi ( talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see
WP:WIAGA for criteria
{{Lead too short}}
tag. Specifically, I would suggest you add the quote "consistently candid in his communications"to the lead, as that is a quote that was widely shared when discussing and speculating on this event.
Altman quipped that the OpenAI board...
reportedlyand
purportedlyas it's a form of editorializing. For example,
The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos", according to The New York Times.can be changed to simply
According to The New York Times, the removal left OpenAI in "chaos".(For this specific quote, bonus points if you say who at The New York Times said this, but it's not required for this review.)
By Saturday morning, the company was in chaos, according to a half dozen current and former employees...By using "reportedly" you're casting doubt on the journalist's sources, which is editorializing unless this claim is refuted by other reliable sources. If we're going to do that, why not do it across the whole article, since most of the article is based on journalists quoting anonymous sources? As a random example,
According to The Information, Altman is planning a new artificial intelligence venture with Brockman- this is also based on anonymous sources. Mokadoshi ( talk) 16:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The board of directors of the controlling non-profit formerly comprised chief scientist Ilya Sutskever, as well as Adam D'Angelo, chief executive of Quora, entrepreneur Tasha McCauley, and Helen Toner, strategy director for the Center for Security and Emerging Technology.Close, but the source doesn't give any title for Toner.
As of October 2023, the company is valued at US$80 billionVerified with source.
"best bromance in tech"Verified with source.
Altman referred to these divisions as "tribes"Verified with source.
OpenAI's board of directors ousted Altman effective immediately following a "deliberative review process". The board concluded that Altman was not "consistently candid in his communications"Verified with source.
the removal was not due to "malfeasance"Verified with source.
"did not mandate removal"Verified with source.
The removal reportedly left OpenAI in "chaos"Verified with source.
should he "start going off"Verified with source.
Musk called the turmoil "troubling" and that he had "mixed feelings" towards Altman.Verified with source.
Altman was a "hero to [him]"Optional: Close, but he said "Altman is a hero of mine." I think it's better if you just say the full quote, or shorten the quote to "hero".
misbehaving childrenVerified with source.
OpenAI had "stunningly poor governance"Verified with source.
Altman is "welcome in France"Verified with source.
Nadella "pulled off a coup of his own" in hiring AltmanVerified with source.