This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles
Hi User:Tvx1, I removed "Essay-like" after adding a secondary source and segmenting the page. As discussed in your talk page, there is now a reference for every statement in the piece, and hopefully no personal reflections. If you feel that this is not sufficient by all mean reinstate it. Best Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the piece again but - apologies - I do not see how this reads as "personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay". There are surely opinions in the text but these are not mine, but of the author himself, as supported by the secondary sources quoted. Is the use of pp. to indicate the page number the problem? Could a third person go through this text and give us an opinion? Thanks! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 09:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Tvx1, I edited the page more, inserted a book information box, and some related material. I also removed "Essay-like" (apologies) but as already mentioned while I admit being sympathetic to the theses of the author, who is surely an opinionated scholar, I do not see in what way what I write is personal (ie my direct opinion) or essay-like. Please note that I have done myself work on these topics in the open academic literature, so while I am not probably a clever Wikipedia editor I daresay I am not a total incompetent in the subject domain. Whatever suggestion you may offer to help me make this page more encyclopedic is very much welcome. Best and thanks for your patience. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 07:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see why the issue is so difficult to spot. Things like "The author uses", "the analysis goes beyond", "the author offers", "the "author notes" are not encyclopedic writing but personal essay.Tvx1 23:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, but I still disagree with you. If I must write based on secondary sources, and the secondary source -- reviews of the book in this case -- notes precisely that 'the analysis goes beyond', or that the 'author uses' then I am bound to report that this is a judgment - cannot transform the same sentence is an objective statement writing instead, for example:
AI systems, beyond fostering precarious labour markets, also act as a necropolitics, the politics of who is entitled to live, and who to die.
and
The expression ‘AI violence’ describes how – based on opaque proprietary algorithms – various actors can inflict damage or discriminate categories of people from accessing jobs, loans, medical care or other benefits.
In the two example above I transformed the opinion of a review relative to the opinion of an author (Mc Quillan) into objective statements. Instead, to stay with the second example, 'AI violence' is a specific and possibly not uncontroversial expression used by the author of the book. I do not want to be stubborn, but I believe it is wrong to remove the attribution of the opinion. When one discusses / describes a book this attribution to the secondary source is needed to maintain objectivity - imagine a case where two secondary sources disagree; one would then need to state as objective two facts in contradiction. If I may add, you still use the expression 'personal', while I am instead relating the opinion of a review, not mine. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can disagree all you want, but Wikipedia's guidelines are what they are and you cannot just refuse to follow them. This entire article is not an encyclopedic description of the subject, but a synthesis of it. Moreover, when you state that you transformed a review of an opinion into an objective statement, you directly admitted that you synthesised a source. I really don't know how I can put this any clearer to you. This is an encyclopedia not a website for book criticism or reviews. Tvx1 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contra Tvx1, references to "the author" are not un-encyclopedic when the topic of the page is a book written by an author. Additionally, I think that claiming Saltean synthesized a source is a misinterpretation of what Saltean is trying to do, which is summarizing verifiable content, not synthesizing multiple sources. Citing reviews of a book as verifiable sources about that book does not make the article into a review or criticism.
At the same time, I would encourage Saltean to use less vague language. Call the book by its title, Resisting AI, or the author by their name.
Two matters by way of aside: first, when I checked the review used to cite the sentence mentioning opaque proprietary algorithms, I found a mention of algorithms but not a mention of them being proprietary. Be careful to not state beyond what the sources state.
Second, the format of the article isn't conducive to conveying information about the book. "Synposis", "Main" and "Suggested strategies" feel more like reproductions of the book's content. Consider following the format of pages like The Math Myth or Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic, 1789–1815.
Overall, while I think this article needs improvements, I do not think the essay-like tag is an accurate characterization of those problems. I support removing the essay-like tag. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello P-Makoto. First of all thank you for bringing your opinion on the matter. The reason why I added the essay tag is because the use statement "The author uses", "the analysis goes beyond", "the author offers", "the "author notes" appear to the readers of this article as if they are the personal essay of the book by whomever wrote this article. They are essentially presented in Wikipedia's voice, which is just not okay. I believe it would be better to present a synopsis based on secondary sources, that avoid such statements entirely or if unavoidable provide in-line attribution to the source. Then there could also be a review or criticism section which also includes in-line attribution of the sources. Also when Saltean states that they "transformed the opinion of a review relative to the opinion of an author (Mc Quillan) into objective statements", that is just a practice we cannot accept. That is actually the core of the issue, which apparently I still have not been able to convey. Such an action runs against the core content policies of Wikipedia.Tvx1 23:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:Tvx1 but there is a serious misunderstanding. Please read more carefully. When I wrote "transformed the opinion of a review relative to the opinion of an author (Mc Quillan) into objective statements" I was making just an example of what should not be done! I was in fact saying "I cannot transform the same sentence is an objective statement". Apologies if this was unclear. That said I will do my best to implement the suggestion just received by User:P-Makoto (but I need to look at the examples offered first). Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, will follow your kind suggestions. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused by a lot of the changes you've made; if anything, the page is now more like an essay than it was before. You have no citations in the Background section, you unnecessarily bolden the title of the book beyond the lede, the "Is AI fascist?" section now has material without a clear citation (as there is no citation at the end of the sentence), and the Critique section is your own synthesis of "multiple reviews" rather than summarizing or citing what the reviews say without synthesizing them. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clear indications. Is the new attempt closer to the mark? Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
