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

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

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)
 * Its very helpful if you are going to request a third opinion to provide a way for the responding editor to figure out what the actual disagreement is. What edits are in question here?  I cant render a third opinion if i dont know what you would like an opinion on. Bonewah (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't recall who requested 3O, but the section in question is Public Controversy and its sources. Schazjmd   (talk)  15:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, well at a minimum, that whole section is terribly written. I had to read it a few times just to piece together what was even being said. As to the content and sources, im pretty underwhelmed by twitter 'controversies' and this is no exception. I guess you can make a case that this material is relevant because the subject responded and deleted her twitter account, but past that, i dont see much that helps the reader understand the subject to any great degree.  I think this material pretty clearly fails the Ten Year test, but i fully admit i dont know much about the subject.  So there is my third opinion.  Rewrite at a minimum, delete unless greater relevance to the subject can be demonstrated.  Ping me if you want me to respond further. Bonewah (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I should add that as this is a BLP, we should default to excluding questionable material, not the other way around. Bonewah (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Newest Addition and Edit
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)


 * You don't seem to grasp WP:CONSENSUS. Rewriting the same content is still edit-warring. I suggest you revert your edits and discuss what you want to add (with refs) here. If you self-revert, I will remove the edit warring report that I just made. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to understand the problem. Please observe that the new content is written from scratch, not the same content. It does not rely on faulty sources, which was the sticking point above. It is supported by credible sources, uses neutral language, doesn't rely on own research, doesn't give undue weight, etc. What exactly is the issue? If you claim that what I wrote here is flawed, it needs a reason, right? I also don't understand this comment of yours: "If you self-revert, I will remove the edit warring report that I just made." Is this a trade? Shouldn't the issue be the correctness of the content? ElPikacupacabra (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you self-reverted, there would be no grounds for the report so I would undo it. You added the same information. It is not supported by reliable sources; it's cited to an archived tweet and a blog post, both WP:SPS. You added original research not supported by those two inadequate sources. You knew this information was in dispute and yet you added it again without getting WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page first. This is not how to go about it. Schazjmd   (talk)  19:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what you added: 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)


 * I never wrote this: "disciplinary action". The word "controversial" is a purely neutral tone way of describing that her comments were not received well. I've added a new source for the blacklash statement . This other comment of yours is not correct: "You knew this information was in dispute and yet you added it again without getting WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page first." The veracity of the information was never the issue, only the source. Please read again the discussion above. Nobody denied that what I wrote about actually happened. Archives are not self-published content; please see WP:WEBARCHIVES. (Previous bad content doesn't make information wrong. If someone wrote something wrong before, does that mean that any new edit cannot touch a certain topic at all? That wouldn't make any sense.) ElPikacupacabra (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you added "disciplinary action" in this edit. "Controversial" is not neutral. You provided no source that supports any information about the reception to her tweet. Your "new" source is a reprint of the Geekwire article. An archive of a tweet is as much self-published as the original tweet. You have yet to provide any sources that support that this is a signficant event or issue that should be mentioned in this article (WP:UNDUE). I really doubt that you've read WP:BLP, which I suggested to you on your talk page. Please do so. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I removed "disciplinary action" (which was in my mind milder) and I changed it to be the exact wording from the source. Not sure this is better or more neutral, but it's the exact words used. "Controversial" is the only neutral way to state that "some people didn't like what was said". If you don't agree, please tell me how this should be phrased in a nicer or more neutral way and I'll change it. The new source is supporting the very limited claims I made. Is there anything wrong with this source? The archive of a tweet cannot be self-published. I doubt the subjet of the bio archived them and then deleted her Twitter comments. I haven't archived them either. In general, using airy reasoning like "significant event" to dismiss the information as UNDUE -- which you get to define yourself -- is not the proper way to do this. It was important enough to generate discussion and to be published in a few sources. That's good enough for the common standards used in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElPikacupacabra (talk • contribs)
 * Where is the source for "some people didn't like what was said"? Where is the source for any of this being of any importance to a biography in an encyclopedia? Where is a reliable, independent source that supports "It was important enough to generate discussion"? Again, read WP:BLP and WP:DUE. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the new source added, we can find for example: "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.”" So people didn't like what she said, and it was significant enough as an event in her life, for her to worry about safety and anxiety. Both statements can additionally be verified from her own words. (This self-published is fine because the writing is not unduly self-serving obviously -- see WP:BLPSELFPUB.) This should answer both concerns. ElPikacupacabra (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Requested editors at BLP noticeboard to participate in the discussion. Schazjmd  (talk)  21:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)