Talk:IBM Watson/Archive 2

Source of Watson's voice
Robert K S and I spent today stepping on each other's feet over the addition of the following paragraph: The source of Watson's synthesized voice was identified by New York Times'' readers as that of actor/audiobook narrator Jeff Woodman, from recordings he made for IBM in 2004 for a text-to-speech program. Woodman subsequently confirmed this on a syndicated radio show.''[source 1 = comment on a New York Times article][source 2 = youtube video of the person speaking who is claimed to be Watson's voice]

I initially removed this paragraph because an anonymous comment on a news article seemed to me to be a patently invalid source, and using a youtube video of Woodman speaking as a citation for his being Watson's voice clear synthesis; however, Robert K S has re-added it and requested that if I dislike the sourcing then I simply leave the text and add a citation needed tag. I'm not quite sure where to go from here; my common sense is asserting that if there is no valid sourcing for the statement, especially since it involves a living person, it should not be present in the article, but I'm unwilling to edit war over the issue. Robert K S, could you perhaps explain why it is you think this information should stay in the article despite its lack of sourcing? Am I missing something reliable in the sources? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll say the following: (1) That New York Times readers identified the voice is undisputed, properly attributed, and fully sourced. To remove that properly attributed statement (see WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) would be akin to removing a statement from and properly attributed to Wikileaks simply because a world government declines to confirm the leaked information.  (This is also shades of WP:NOTCENSORED.  Just because IBM apparently doesn't want the source of the voice revealed doesn't mean we need follow their lead.  Here, only two parties could definitively confirm their association, IBM and Woodman, and simply because both sought to suppress the information would not be a justifiable reason for its exclusion from this encyclopedia.  As it happens, it seems that one party has come forward and verified, but more on that later.)  (2) In this case there is no genuine dispute, no contention by anyone that the voice has been misidentified.  Anyone who has listened to a lot of Watson and a lot of Jeff Woodman must acknowledge, and cannot reasonably deny, that Watson's voice derives principally from Woodman's.  Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, but when information is undeniably true, the case for inclusion of attributed opinions (as is the case here) cannot be weakened by a verifiability of the truthfulness of the opinion argument.  (I hope that is clear.)  (3) Though IBM is still, as of today, dodging the question, we have information that Jeff Woodman has "come out" as providing his voice to IBM's Text-To-Speech program (extant at least as early as 2003).  I'm still trying to track down information about Woodman's radio confirmation of the facts behind his involvement.  In the meantime, removing the information would deprive comers to this page of the opportunity to supply the information being sought that would provide improved sourcing.  (4) This information is of timely interest.  Watson will debut one week from today.  People come to Wikipedia to get answers.  It seems unreasonable, given the totality of the circumstances, to insist on the removal of timely information on procedural rather than substantive grounds just when demand for access to the information will be at its peak. (5) There is simply no BLP issue here.  The intent of BLP guidelines is to protect living persons from negative coverage that would potentially violate defamation or privacy law.  An argument cannot be made that associating Jeff Woodman with IBM's Watson would constitute defamation or invasion of privacy even if, arguendo, it were factually incorrect.  There is no potential for this information to be embarrassing, libelous, or intrusive, especially when all parties in question are public figures. In sum, I agree that more can be done to improve this information and its sourcing, but think that it will come in time, and in the meantime, removing the information would be senseless and counterproductive to the aim of improvement. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Anonymous contributors to the comments section of the New York Times claimed to have identified the source of Watson's voice as voice actor Jeff Woodman; Wikipedia contributor Robert K S subsequently claimed that anyone who listened to Watson and to Woodman "must acknowledge" and "cannot deny" that the voices are the same." How's that? DS (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The phrasing as you propose it, Robert K S, makes a statement that the "identification" is truth, when in fact there is no reliably-sourced evidence one way or another of that. As you noted, our policy is verifiability, not truth, and though it may very well be true that Woodman's voice is used for Watson, there is currently no actual verification of that that does not call for synthesis, which we explicitly disallow.

If you feel that it's incredibly important that some mention of this be made in the article, I could agree to a wording like Dragonfly suggests, such as "An anonymous commenter on a New York Times article claimed to recognize the source of Watson's voice as actor/audiobook narrator Jeff Woodman." This accurately reflects both the source you want to use and the validity of it. Any wording that says he was "identified as" or "shown to be", however, asserts something not available in the source. The Youtube clip is simply of no use to us; unless Woodman states in it that he is Watson's voice, it provides zero verification for the assertion. Arguing that it is clear that the two voices sound the same is similarly of no use; it is entirely possible for two voices to sound similar but not be the same, and again, we have no actual verification that the two are identical.

If, on the other hand, you can locate that interview where Woodman confirms that his voice is used, then fantastic and the problem is solved! Absent that confirmation, though, what we would be "depriving" readers of by removing this essentially-unsourced assertion is not truth, but speculation. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! 16:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The only problem with the compromise language is that it seems to have impelled the removal of the information on a WP:V basis. In my view, this too nearly approaches censorship--though the voice has been identified, and we have many reasons to give credence to the identification and no reasons to doubt it, the "claimed to" language gives the information an air of dubiousness.  Additionally, it is not as if only the NY Times posters identified the voice; various other blogs have done so as well.  Language that states the NY Times posters were the first to identify the voice might be more fitting. Robert K S (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While you or I may have many reasons to give credence to the "outing", the part you don't seem to be getting is that Wikipedia doesn't because our policies for reliable sourcing state that until this fact is verifiable by a reliable source, it gets no credence. And as of yet, no one has turned up a source that is reliable according to our definition of "reliable." As I said, I could live with the compromise language, but I'm not at all surprised someone else came along and noticed the lack of reliability in it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Although it doesn't confirm Woodman, this clip now on YouTube, entitled "The Face of Watson", does talk a little about the voice, and reveals that one particular voiceover artist was selected and had to spend weeks in a recording booth to get all the data the synthesizer would need. It also talks quite a lot about "generative artist" Joshua Davis's design of Watson's avatar ("face"). This would be good information to add to the article. Robert K S (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * From this web site for the Anything Goes!! syndicated radio program: "This week on Anything Goes!! LIVE Monday February 14 - Tune in and meet Jeff Woodman, the voice of IBM's Watson before you watch the mighty computer compete on Jeopardy!!" Has a picture of Woodman. Robert K S (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And now, someone present at Jeff's recording sessions has posted an e-mail from Jeff on Ken Jennings's message boards explaining the inside story.  Robert K S (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Jeff Woodman 19:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)I am Jeff Woodman, and I am confirming that, yes, Watson's voice is mine, and was created from recordings I made in 2004 for an IBM Text-To-Speech software program, produced by IBM's Andy Aaron, and recorded at Full House Studios in NYC.

Six years later, when IBM and I entered into negotiations for the use of my voice as Watson on the upcoming Jeopardy broadcasts, we agreed upon a rate for future SAG/AFTRA commercial use, as well as a non-disclosure clause, as at that time IBM wished to keep the source of Watson's voice anonymous.

However, unbeknownst to me, my audiobook listeners began posting online (to the NY Times comments section, YouTube, and other sites) that they recognized Watson's voice as mine, and I began to receive inquires from friends, family, and from syndicated radio host Lise Avery (Anything Goes Radio). I reached out to one of IBM's attorneys, Howard Weingrad of the law firm of Davis & Gilbert (with whom I had negotiated the contract) for guidance, and was given IBM's permission to "come out" as the voice of Watson, with the caveat that I reveal nothing about how Watson works (which was a no brainer for me as I barely grasp how an abacus works.)

IBM is saying that they auditioned actors "to be the voice of Watson" and they may well have done so, but the voice they (and/or the Jeopardy producers) eventually chose was mine, and was composed entirely of the 2004 recordings database, as I provided them no subsequent recording sessions, nor did they request any. I now receive residuals whenever Watson speaks in a venue covered by the current SAG/AFTRA Commercials Contract, so if I am NOT the voice of Watson, IBM and Ogilvy are involved in a wonderful "Support Your Local Voice-Over Actor" charity, and I wholeheartedly endorse their efforts.

I hope this puts the "source" controversy to rest.--Jefflrfe (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Watson (computer). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130603034018/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/021010-ibm-jeopardy-game.html?hpg1=bn to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/021010-ibm-jeopardy-game.html?hpg1=bn
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010111119/http://www.jeopardy.com/news/ibm.php to http://www.jeopardy.com/news/ibm.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:43, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

heavily biased and woefully out of date
This article reads like an IBM PR release. Most of its content is 5 years or more out of date. Watson (the commercial service from IBM) has failed miserably in most areas it has been bought for, especially medical diagnoses (as of late 2018). One obvious problem is the conflation of the 'original' system (as used on Jeopardy in 2011) and the on-going service IBM sells. Simply because they have the same name, doesn't mean there is any significant similarities between them. (And it's well known that the software platform was extensively modified (if not completely rewritten) for commercial release, not to mention the fact that the product continues to be modified.) Watson has LOST support since its commercial release. If that isn't discussed here (it is NOT currently), then this article can't be unbiased. It's like an article on Enron or Bear-Sterns which makes no mention of their downfall. This article needs to be divided into the Jeopardy system (as it was in 2011, say) and the current commercial service. They aren't the same.72.16.99.93 (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Watson (computer) needs renaming
While Watson may, at one time, have been a single computer, it is very clear from their recent marketing that Watson has become something along the lines of a product line of answer engines. Watson as of now is no more a "computer" than Google is a computer. I'm not sure what term should be used to describe Watson. Answer engine is the closest in current Wikipedia usage, but that term is inadequate.

So what should Watson be called, if not "a computer"?

Also, given the rapid development of different applications for Watson, the article as currently written unduly emphasizes Jeopardy. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Man Versus System (MVS) was a forerunner of IBM's Watson. Perhaps reverting to the original name Man Versus System is appropriate in these circumstances? ;-) 66.155.23.67 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Watson (software)? 82.28.76.203 (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

As of today, IBM Watson is neither hardware nor any particular software. It is the brand name for their AI-based offerings. From their website: "Watson is IBM’s suite of enterprise-ready AI services, applications and tooling." As said below, this article is completely outdated. 134.160.214.17 (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

John Kelly
Hi, I'm Jason, and I'm here on behalf of IBM as part of my work with Beutler Ink (I've added a disclosure to the top of this page). As someone with a conflict of interest, I will avoid editing the article directly and instead post requests to be reviewed by volunteers. I am requesting to add relevant information pertaining to Dr. John Kelly to the article's History section. As the director of research and an employee of IBM for 40 years, Dr. Kelly has played a major role in the development of Watson, but he is not mentioned in the current article. Will an editor please review my proposed language and sourcing below, and implement if appropriate?

I'm happy to address questions or concerns. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In my POV, too much emphasis on one name. Keep it simple, eg.:


 * Pavlor (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reviewing. I'm fine with your preferred language. Are you willing to update the article as such? Inkian Jason (talk) 19:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! Pavlor (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your help. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update for Current and future applications
Hi again. Related to above, I am requesting to add relevant information pertaining to Kelly and Watson to the article's Current and future applications section, specifically at the end of the Healthcare subsection. I propose adding:

Will an editor please review my proposed language and sourcing below, and implement if appropriate? Since you assisted with the above request, I'm bringing this to your attention as well. Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Inkian Jason Sorry for belated reply. Sounds too much like a corporate newspeak to my ears and there is also a due weight concern (not even mentioned in the first two refs ref and only one small announcement paragraph in the third ref). This article is about Watson, people behind it are important, but this article should not give too much emphasis on them (due weight again). In the end, only useable part is the last phrase (eg. "In 2020, Kelly announced IBM's partnership with the Bambino Gesù Hospital in Vatican City to use Watson to gather data about brain cancer and other diseases.", but this is a routine corporate announcement, so one wonders why even include it (published peer reviewed paper about use of Watson in this hospital would be another matter, or at least a some longer news article). Pavlor (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback. There's more detail here, and this Reuters article may clarify the connection between the partnership and the ethics discussion: "It was not immediately clear whether other technology companies might sign up to the document, or how signatories would implement the principles. IBM, for example, wants a doctor to be in the loop when its AI technology makes healthcare recommendations - something that may increase over time following a deal with the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesù Children’s Hospital in Rome. That partnership will focus on developing technology to speed up diagnosis and treatment of brain tumor patients." Does this help? Inkian Jason (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Inkian Jason I fear I´m not able to help you this time. My "gut feeling" cries about "unnecessary corporate puffery". The very point of this addition seems to be an attempt to raise profile of Kelly, not to write about Watson. Maybe you should find somebody else for this. Pavlor (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My goal is to add mention of Watson's use at Bambino Gesù Children's Hospital, not to promote Kelly, but I understand your concern. I mentioned Kelly in my proposed text for additional context and know editors have the ultimate say here. I will try reaching out to one or two WikiProjects to see if any other editors want to weigh in. Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about challenging Watson to edit Wikipedia
What do you think about proposing Wikipedia editing as a challenge to IBM's Watson? Charles Juvon (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

2021 update
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/16/technology/what-happened-ibm-watson.html Mapsax (talk) 02:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)