Talk:MOSAIC threat assessment systems

I don't understand why the opinions of people who have not used the system or demonstrated a fundamental understanding of how it works are included here. That is not a controversy. That is trying to present an opposing viewpoint as being equal out of one that is not. Can we remove the uninformed opinions? They don't belong here. Let someone post them on their own blog. I'd also add, that in light of the actual harm that the proprietary algorithms used in 'predictive policing' do, (see Chicago) these comments seem especially dated. Let them be forgotten. 2600:1009:B064:AE86:71D0:1536:45FF:F7CF (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

--209.131.252.207 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV?
"There are some serious validity issues here, some reputation-ruining implications."

This ought to be supported with an explanation. Otherwise, we should just say that one professor dislikes de Becker's approach and leave it at that. --Uncle Ed 18:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not "one professor," an expert from the Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior. If you have citations where experts praise MOSAIC, please add them. I didn't find any in reliable sources after a cursory search. Jokestress 18:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't say he was wrong, I said it ought to be supported with an explanation. What is the IVDB expert's explanation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ed Poor (talk • contribs)


 * I am adding some more commentary and explanation about various responses, especially from right when it rolled out. Jokestress 19:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now it has progressed from unbalanced tripe to balanced tripe. The professor says the consultant, is only studying "surface characteristics", and the consultant says "Am not!" I'm still waiting for a serious examination of the validity issues. You've barely scratched the surface here. --Uncle Ed 20:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hence the stub tag. =) Jokestress 20:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV or not, the style of this article is totally off: obvious ... Contrary to a popular misconception ... Clearly ... Of course ... Imagine that ... Myths ... There are some people who think ... It reads as if copied from a magazine. In other words, not encyclopedic.--87.162.26.149 01:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed with above in that there is alot of thoose words.


 * "De Becker responded, "It is not predictive and doesn't claim to be scientific." So... it's guessing without the actual guessing or :accuracy? *clap clap* Honestly, I know this isn't the right place, but that's the best reply he could come up with?

Annoying username (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

This article seems, aside from the "controversy" section, reads like a MOSAIC-published pamphlet. can anyone say unbalanced? --209.131.252.207 (talk) 04:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Frankly, so does the "controversy" section 12.171.36.226 (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Acronym?
What does MOSAIC even stand for? --zandperl (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Morons Only Suggest Archaic Invalid Classifications. Joking aside, this is a press release not an article, and probably should be deleted unless somebody can find sources besides its practitioner and his clients that espouse its use. 98.30.43.66 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)