Talk:Anima Anandkumar

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Anima Anandkumar by window.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Twitter Controversy

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)

If it is an important controversy, independent reliable sources will take note of it. Twitter feuds are not inherently notable or WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 23:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

This is an important topic because it led her to delete her account and issue an apology on her blog. If there are mentions of her receiving threats online, there should also be mention of her issuing threats online. This is also important in liue of teh students targetted because wiki acts as s source that people can go to refer back to apology

Hellpresearch (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Just because she blogs something does not make it WP:DUE. If there are no independent sources covering this, it's original research. Hellpresearch, the content you added included information not supported by the sources you cite, and your sources are merely two blog posts by Anandkumar. This does not belong in the article. Please do not add it again until you obtain consensus here (which I don't expect you'll get until you have better sources). Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

As per wikipedia policies, a person's own writing is considered a valid source and can be quoted Hellpresearch (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellpresearch (talk • contribs)

The content you added was not fully supported by her two blog posts. Nor are her blog posts WP:DUE for inclusion without any independent coverage in reliable sources that make this a noteworthy incident that should be included in the encyclopedia article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Would this count as a proper source: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/retired-uw-computer-science-professor-embroiled-twitter-spat-ai-ethics-cancel-culture/ ? Or https://aboutml.medium.com/the-toxic-ml-twitter-94ed97038c7f ? The Twitter posts can also be found archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20201214233656/https://twitter.com/AnimaAnandkumar/status/1338282250614411264 . Although personal feuds are not necessarily something that should be on Wikipedia, here it borders on the balance between free scientific inquiry vs ethical concerns and therefore it gets relevant Mathias.bavay (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2021 (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)

Hellpresearch, you didn't quote them. You used them as sources for information that is not in the blog posts. Nor have you provided any evidence to support that any of this is of any importance worth including it in the article. Schazjmd (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

This controversy made the front page of Hacker News. Twice.

• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25575321
• https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25419844

Geekwire covered the story: https://www.geekwire.com/2020/retired-uw-computer-science-professor-embroiled-twitter-spat-ai-ethics-cancel-culture/

Others:

• from Jesse Singal, a prominent journalist: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1338531050427965446?s=20
• #10 on this list: https://analyticsindiamag.com/top-10-famous-tweets-on-ai-that-made-headlines-in-2020/
• https://eternal-student.medium.com/the-narcissists-are-running-the-digital-ivory-tower-5f4fcee30bbf
• not included: multiple articles including VentureBeat, that site the GeekWire article
• nor included: multiple blog posts from ML experts discussing the controversy
• nor included: an article from Pedro Domingos discussing the controversy in Quillette

If this doesn't rise to the level of newsworthy, then nothing does

Rendall (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent Addition and Edit War

Issues with potentially controversial material in recent addition:

• the consensus on source is that it is generally unreliable, and the guideline for a generally unreliable source is that it should never be used as information on an article about a living person: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
• the opinion article is written by person who is a participant in the debate and in opposition to the person in this BLP: it is written from a subjective and not neutral point of view
• the potentially controversial or negative content in the addition is not supported by further verifiable references in the opinion article

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:

• No consensus that Quilette is unreliable. A wiki page saying so is not proof.
• Biographies are often sourced from own writing, or from writing of people engaged in with the subject, and who may possibly be non-neutral.
• The personal posts of the subject of the controversy herself confirms the sources. The citation is there.

Please don't remove true and relevant content just for political reasons. --ElPikacupacabra (talk) 14:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia's policy page, and the consensus is documented there. Please have a look at the BLP policy in the links that were provided, in particular: "Generally Unreliable: ... it should never be used for information about a living person". Tunkki-1970 (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Further, as was already mentioned by Schazjmd (talk) above, the added section includes information not supported by the sources Tunkki-1970 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:RSPS, 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)

The Geekwire source above is the only RS so far. The article's only mentions of Anandkumar are:

That 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.

and

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.”

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)

From WP:RSPS for source Quilette: "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." This means that, being a publication of opinion, the concern is not reliability but relevance. There is also . Please don't delete content based on political opinions. The controversy is relevant for discussion and is relevant for subject as it is related to her contribution to her field of research. May be better to adjust tone of language.

ElPikacupacabra (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ElPikacupacabra, the absence of reliable sources providing any coverage of the event indicates that it is not WP:DUE. Schazjmd (talk) 18:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References