Talk:Pedro Domingos

Controversies and Algorithmic Bias

There should be a section about Domingos' comments about algorithmic biases in machine learning and the controversies that they have generated. I and other users have added one with a number of citations, but user Sir-lay has removed it multiple times. Such a section is necessary for providing information on the ongoing debates about diversity and ethics in machine learning. Domingos is a key figure of one side of this debate, and his page should reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmcandre (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Since this is a living person biography we need to be careful with the way this controversy is covered. Wikipedia has very strong guidelines and requires the immediate removal of anything that is contentious: "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". I am not against having a section discussing these issues, but they need to adhere to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. In particular, it should be written in a neutral and dispassionate tone while relying on secondary sources (which the corresponding tweets are not).Sir-lay (talk) 23:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sir-lay here. The content, as included, is a BLP violation. It would need better sourcing for inclusion, and I would also suggest that (if you find that better sourcing) you run the proposed addition through the talk page first, so it can be discussed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the subject of this article dislikes some of its content. That's not an ironclad reason to remove it, but does require it to be immaculately sourced and NPOV. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

The Verge is a "reliable source for use in articles relating to technology, science, and automobiles", so there's some room for argument over whether it's an RS on culture wars within the technology sphere. I'm happy to omit the content for now if we can have consensus to do so, but if there's stronger RS on it in the future (which seems likely to me to happen), the content will probably have to be allowed in, for better or worse. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

In 2020, Domingo criticized the research and activism of multiple AI ethicists, most notably Timnit Gebru and Anima Anandkumar, drawing some criticism himself. - How does this line convey any meaningful encyclopedic information to a reader is beyond me but congratulations on writing a NPOV line. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey folks. Did y'all ever reach a consensus on this? I just reverted an IP who was blanking a lot of the referenced material there because their rationale didn't seem to match up with the conversation here. But I'm not a normal watcher of this page and only found it while on recent changes patrol. I'd like to double check if a consensus was reached before I do so again, if it becomes necessary. Millahnna (talk) 21:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment: I also found through recent changes patrol, and I did revert, but then self reverted per the above. There are a few news article sources in the content, but half of them are tweets. I self reverted off of that alone, so consensus needs to be achieved here. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 21:57, 3 February 2023 (UTC)