Talk:B. J. Fogg

Article subject complaint and editorial response
BJ Fogg here.

Someone is posting misleading statements about me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.151.133.191 (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

In response to BJ Fogg
Thank you, Dr. Fogg, for clearly and frequently disclosing your "actual" conflict-of-interest in your editing of this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Actual,_potential_and_apparent_COI).

According to Wikipedia policies: "Editors with a COI... are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly."(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_disclose_a_COI) "You should generally refrain from creating articles about yourself, or anyone you know, unless through the Articles for Creation process... Requests for updates to an article about yourself or someone with whom you have a personal connection can be made on the article's talk page by following the instructions at WP:COIREQ." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Actual,_potential_and_apparent_COI).

Please refrain from any future edits of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F7F:F3D0:2DB8:6976:CE2D:3AB4 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident concerning this article. The thread is B. J. Fogg. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverting Dkriegls, Jonathan_A_Jones purges
Dkriegls, your conflict of interest in the subject, BJ Fogg, does not allow you to make such sweeping, dramatic changes, especially the removal of carefully documented and researched critiques of Fogg. Your financial association with Live Neuron Labs, and its past associations and continued evangelism of Fogg's work on its website and through its co-founder (your brother), Robin Krieglstein, is cause for an ethical investigation of your biased whitewashing.

Jonathan_A_Jones, your unexplained attempt to repurge Dkriegls' purge is unjustified by WP policies.


 * Firstly please note WP:TPO which says "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning": reverting your deletion of somebody else's edit is absolutely policy compliant. Secondly please note WP:NPA. And thirdly please learn how to perform a few elementary courtesies such as signing your comments. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Explaining my initial edits.
Per IP edit war (which I have not participated), I feel it's important for me to explain my efforts with this article and any connections I have with B.J. Fogg. My brother was a member of B.J. Fogg's lab and has maintained a friendship since then. I do not have any such relationship with B.J. Fogg. I do teach his model among many in my college lecture, but do not use it professionally. However, through this connection I once participated in an academic (read: un-paid) collaboration among several international labs and professionals to develop a measurement tool. The effort was led by B.J. Fogg through his lab. The meetings were all group level, among many professionals. I've had no contact with Fogg before or since. This is likely why the account identified as B.J. Fogg asked for my input, I have no reason to doubt it is B.J. Fogg. No request outside of Wikipedia has been made to me regarding this article. My CoI is not for me to measure, nor have I tired to.

I have worked extensively with Wikipedia's CoI efforts and regally help editors navigate the complexity of WP:Bio. CoI is not a ban from editing and subjects of articles are encouraged to request efforts for improvement on the talk pages of articles. I saw a clear violation of WP:BLPBALANCE, given that the criticism was half the article and several times the content targets the field and not the subject of the biography. I attempted to address it by practicing WP:Bio's demand that "We must get the article right". I moved the conflict to the talk page and requested help condensing it. I would have happily condensed the section myself, as I believe a condensed criticism section is warranted, but I wanted to avoid any impression of CoI. An IP, who's only edits are to revert changes to the criticism section, disagrees so I stopped editing. Again, not my place to judge my own CoI by proxy. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

For brevity, I'm quoting WP:BLPBALANCE here to demonstrate why such violations in a Biography of a Living Person is treated differently than in other Wikipedia articles, and why it's important to address it with haste:


 * "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of small minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association, and biased, malicious or overly promotional content."


 * "The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

In response to Dkriegls
Simply removing criticism because of WP:BLBALANCE without a sufficient and superior replacement is equivalent to purging. Further, by your own admission of Fogg's entreaties to you regarding reviewing the article, you have an "apparent" COI (WP:COI). For both these reasons, the Criticism section, while not perfect, should stand as is until a superior successor is written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F80:D30:E42A:627C:CDC4:626D (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear anonymous user, I'd like to welcome you to Wikipedia and help you navigate our editing policies. This article will help you understand what is expected of an IP account that is only editing a single page. Single-purpose account. To date, your edits on Wikipedia have only been to revert me, investigate me, and protect the critique section of this article. Your incorrect referencing of Wikipedia guidelines during this effort is expected of a new users and good faith should be assumed. For example, a purge has a specific technical meaning in Wikipedia. See WP:Purge. It is perfectly okay for you to not have known this. But now you know that no purge has taken place here.


 * In order to prevent any impressions of bad faith on your part, I encourage you to create a user account, spend time editing Wikipedia articles you have dispassionate towards, and using those edits to better understand some the policies you are citing. Again, please familiarize yourself with the Single-purpose account essay:
 * "If you are in this situation and some editors directed you to this page, pointing that you made "few or no other edits outside this topic", they are encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia guidelines about conflicts of interest and advocacy. This is because while many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest, a significant number appear to edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing their favored point of view, which is not allowed."

Requesting Notability Tag Removal
I've been challenged on CoI grounds so I confine my review of this article to the talk page. I believe the Notability tag should be removed. Here are a series of Reliable sources discussing Fogg in depth or even interviewing him: CNBC, NPR interview , WGN radio interview , The Sydney Morning Herald , San Francisco Chronicle , Boston Globe , etc. -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 22:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

In response to Dkriegls
You are incorrectly attributing the Notability issue: the issue is specifically notability for ACADEMICS (WP:ACADEMIC). Being referenced in non-academic publications is insufficient.
 * That is not how wp:notability works. Either may apply. Not qualifying for WP:Academic does not exclude a subject from qualifying for general notability. As an unregistered IP, I encourage you to be bold ( WP:BOLD ), but also fully ready our guidelines before trying to implement them. The relevant section from WP: Academic:


 * "This guideline is independent from the other subject-specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:AUTH, etc., and is explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines."
 * -- D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 23:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

DKriegls, the notability flag shown at the top this article is for WP:ACADEMIC NOT WP:NOTABILITY. You suggested removing the notability tag from the article: the notability tag shown there is for ACADEMICS. I would actually agree that this article merits WP:NOTABILITY, but perhaps NOT WP:ACADEMIC or at least it is yet to be defended. Perhaps it is you who is need to read more carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:603:F80:D30:E42A:627C:CDC4:626D (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That argument is completely bogus, and from the material in the criticism section below, which you for some reason removed from the talk page, there is a prima facie case for notability. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Jonathan A Jones, two weeks with no new objections to removing the notability warning. Would you mind carrying out the edit? D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 02:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

✅. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section
I am restoring this section to the talk page. The text was quite properly removed from the article as its previous form is both WP:UNDUE and contrary to WP:CRIT, but this material should be selectively reincorporated into the article in a more appropriate form. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Original text from article
In August 2011, the Pacific Standard published a critique by Bran Knowles, a data science lecturer and ethicist at Lancaster University: "'...though Fogg dedicates a chapter of his 2002 book Persuasive Technology to questions of ethics, searches for “ethics' and 'manipulation' on the Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab website yield no results, and academics and researchers probing questions of ethics in persuasive technology are few and far between. Knowles chalks this up to the example set by Fogg, in which 'users are expected to accept the basic premise of the ‘correctness’ of the designers’ chosen end behavior; and the designer is not expected to have rigorously debated the preferability of this end behavior.'"In May 2016, in Behavior Analyst, science journalist and author David H. Freedman, characterized Fogg as "disingenuous and unscientific": "'B. J. Fogg and his Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab likewise have gained recognition and popularity by enlisting principles strikingly similar to those of behaviorism and reformulating them so as to seem novel and resonant. Though it might seem disingenuous and unscientific to do so, it would in principle be possible for the field of behavior analysis to 'reinvent' itself for public consumption in a different, catchier form, while adhering to the same principles and techniques.'"In October 2016, The Economist featured Fogg in a special issue, "The Scientists Who Make Apps Addictive":"'...behaviourism never went away completely, and in recent years it has re-emerged in a new form, as an applied discipline deployed by businesses and governments to influence the choices you make every day: what you buy, who you talk to, what you do at work. Its practitioners are particularly interested in how the digital interface – the box in which we spend most of our time today – can shape human decisions. The name of this young discipline is 'behaviour design'. Its founding father is B.J. Fogg.'"In the same 2016 Economist article, Tristan Harris defended Fogg asserting "BJ founded the field of behaviour design,... but he doesn’t have an answer to the ethics of it." He subsequently reasserted in a series of tweets: "I want to clarify yet again that BJ was one of the first to raise awareness on the topic of the Ethics of Persuasive Technology since 1997." Harris also argues Fogg did not invent persuasive technology: "There was this whole discipline of persuasive technology before BJ came along." In February 2018, Wired Magazine claimed Fogg's "Stanford lab created the formula to make technology addictive." The article indicates Fogg's lab..."'... was a toll booth for entrepreneurs and product designers on their way to Facebook and Google. Nir Eyal, the bestselling author of the book, Hooked, sat in lectures next to Ed Baker, who would later become the Head of Growth at both Facebook and Uber. Kevin Systrom and Mike Krieger, the founders of Instagram, worked on projects alongside Tristan Harris, the former Google Design Ethicist who now leads the Time Well Spent movement. Together, in Fogg's lab, they studied and developed the techniques to make our apps and gadgets addictive.'"In March 2018, criticism of Fogg was joined by child and adolescent psychologists, including Dr. Richard Freed   who characterizes the results of Fogg's work as "clandestine techniques that manipulate users to fulfill a profit motive" continuing:"'... there are signs that Fogg is feeling the heat from recent scrutiny of the use of digital devices to alter behavior. His boast about Instagram, which was present on his website as late as January of 2018, has been removed. Fogg’s website also has lately undergone a substantial makeover, as he now seems to go out of his way to suggest his work has benevolent aims, commenting, 'I teach good people how behavior works so they can create products & services that benefit everyday people around the world.' Likewise, the Stanford Persuasive Technology Lab website optimistically claims, 'Persuasive technologies can bring about positive changes in many domains, including health, business, safety, and education. We also believe that new advances in technology can help promote world peace in 30 years.''"

Fogg responded to Freed's claims in a Medium essay, including retorting Freed "mischaracterized my work and the work in my Stanford research lab. [Dr. Freed] is misleading readers by portraying me as the bad guy."

In June 2018, Vivek Wadhwa, Distinguished Fellow at Carnegie Mellon University's College of Engineering, dedicated a chapter of his book, "Your Happiness Has Been Hacked" to Fogg entitled "The Origins of Technology Addiction: B.J. Fogg and His Disciples":"'Some of Fogg's research findings may seem head-smackingly obvious. Importantly, Fogg is not a clear villain in this story... In recent interviews, Fogg has expressed misgivings that his findings are being used for profiteering and hoarding human attention in ways that are not good for people or society. But as with many other researchers (Einstein prominent among them), his work was easily enough incorporated into uses that far outstripped his initial ideas.'"In February 2020, The Stanford Review highlighted in a feature article, "How Stanford Profits Off Addiction":"'... one of Stanford's eccentric social scientists, B.J. Fogg, founded the Persuasive Technology Lab to research how tech products could alter people's attitudes and behavior... The behavioral design hacks that came out of Stanford were irresponsible, even sinister, given their instrumental role in creating widespread phone addiction... Imagine if our professors were teaching students the perfect ratio of sugar and salt to make junk food addictive or our most famous alumni had founded major tobacco companies. The reality is not too dissimilar, and no less alarming.'"

Discussion
For convenience I copy below the text the of original posting at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/BJ Fogg which led to the crticism section being copied here:

Some of these comments are clearly correct, such as paragraphs referenced to twitter or student journalism. Others are harder to evaluate quickly. But in any case, as suggested by user Morbidthoughts at BLP/N this text should be condensed and integrated into the main article where possible. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The double standard is also apparent. Right wing conservatives (and others who are very confused), have repeatedly injected right-wing criticisms into left-wing academic articles like Nancy MacLean.  But in an article about B. J. Fogg, so-called "left wing" criticisms about people like Fogg, whose models are used by the right wing to change consumer and voter preferences to align with their political goals, such criticism is automatically deleted. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @Viriditas, I couldn't find any articles discussing Fogg's politics, but he is openly gay and runs the Peace Innovation lab at Stanford. In this article, Fogg describes feeling alone and afraid as a gay student at conservative BYU. Do you have any citations from authors claiming a Right Wing Bias to his work? D kriegls  ( talk to me! ) 02:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)