Talk:Mark Rober

POV pushing on NEXT for AUTISM

My citing of the backlash to Mark Rober's partnership with NEXT for AUTISM was deleted for "POV pushing due to unreliable sources". I defend the presence of these sources:

• The first source is an opinion article by a disabilities scholar, if not a formal publication.
• The second article is not from a major publication, but it does include NEXT for AUTISM's formal response to the allegations, evidence that the controversy was significant enough to warrant their comment.

The text itself is brief and neutrally mentions the existence of controversy. I would like to have it reinstated, though I'd accept a removal of the first source.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Rober&diff=prev&oldid=1131871370&diffmode=source MaferPues (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

The first source says nothing about criticism. The other two are unreliable. I did some research online and it looks like an active campaign against NEXT for AUTISM. See WP:RGW. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Full Name and Birth Date

Hello,

I recently added Rober's full name and birth date. However, they were both removed. I believe they should have stayed.

Firstly, the source I added for Rober's full name was removed for being from IMDb. However, it was actually from IMDbPro, instead of the normal IMDb. IMDbPro allows crew members to create their own resumes and use that to find work. This means that Rober himself would have put that name onto the page, meaning it passes WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSPS, as it is "written or published by the subject of the article", and "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public". Due to this, I believe his full name should be allowed to stay on the page.

Next, his date of birth. The sources I used for that were the Wired article which was already on the page, and a tweet from Rober's official Twitter account. The Wired article is fine as it is a reliable source, and was already on the page. The Twitter source was removed because "Twitter is not usable". However, I believe that it is usable. It passes WP:DOB, as it is "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public."

Due to all of this, I believe that my additions should stay.

Thoughts? Strugglehouse (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Specific tweets from verified users (i.e. the subject of the article) can be used for otherwise unknowable information. IMDb is currently considered a non-RS, and there does not appear to be any firm consensus on whether Pro is an exception, so if you wish to carve out that exception you will need to start a centralised discussion on the matter. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I would echo what Primefac says about IMDb. However, even if it were considered reliable, WP:NCBIO would apply. We need to stick with what the majority of the references call him which is simply by his first and last name. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I don't think WP:NCBIO would be relevant here. That guideline related to the actual article title. I am not suggesting we rename the article to his full name, I am suggesting we add it to the page. Strugglehouse (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct. If it is not a title change, then NCBIO would not apply. However, I do not see reliable sources showing this as his middle name. I see some unreliable sources and mirror sites that take it from those unreliable sources. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Yes, we would need to check the general consensus on using IMDbPro, as apposed to regular IMDb. As I said before, IMDbPro allows people to create there own resumes, therefore making this a self-posted primary source of his name, so I think it should be okay.

What do you think about adding his birthday in the way I said in my original message? Strugglehouse (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think the Twitter post is clear enough to indicate his DOB. Primefac (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Okay, thanks. I haven't made many discussions before, so I'm not fully sure how it works, but the general consensus for the date of birth inclusion seems to be to include it. Is this enough to add it if I link to this discussion and the relevant Wikipedia guidelines? Strugglehouse (talk) 15:02, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you, me, and CNMall41 are the main three participants in this discussion, I'd like to get CNMall41's thoughts on the matter before it gets enacted; while it's not strictly necessary I always like to extend the courtesy to all discussion participants. Primefac (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Alright, thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

We can deduce things from a Twitter post, yes. It still isn't something widely published in reliable sources so there is always a potential WP:BLPPRIVACY issue. Because of the comment he made on Twitter, can we reasonably infer that he has no objection to his date of birth being posted publicly on Wikipedia? Even the article in Wired only says his age. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, we can include "sources linked to the subject". It doesn't have to be widely published if it's a self-published. Rober has not complained about the inclusion of his birthdate, nor is he borderline notable. He posted his birthday publicly on Twitter. He isn't trying to hide it. Yes, the Wired article only says his age, but, using this age and the date the article was posted, this alone allows us to work out his birth year down to either 1980 or 1981. Using this, and the tweet of his, we can work out that his birthday is March 11, 1980. Strugglehouse (talk) 08:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we can use sources linked to the subject. We have one source, of him Tweeting, which is NOT publicly posting his date of birth. It's not like he posted it on his Twitter profile, he's simply replying to someone's Tweet in a general conversation. As far as "widely published," I am referring to BLPPRIVACY where it says we generally include "full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources." His date of birth is neither widely published nor is Twitter a reliable source. I would always err on the side of privacy when it comes to BLP. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:54, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Of course privacy is important, but these sources pass all the privacy checks. As I have already said, it passes WP:BLPPRIVACY as it is self-published. It does not need to widely published if it is self-published. The sources need to be widely published OR self-published, not both. He is certainly not trying to hide it by posting it on a public social media profile. Tweets can appear on anyone's timeline, whether they are actual tweets or replies, and whether they follow someone or not. This means anyone on Twitter can see this full conversation, where Rober states his age and birthday. In this full thread, he himself is stating his full date of birth, publicly. This also passes WP:TWITTER, as it's not an exceptional claim or unduly self-serving. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

If privacy is important, why the push? It is of utmost importance and unless we have something more than a deduction from a Tweet, we need to err on the side of caution. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Full Name and Birth Date (2)

Hello,

I posted about this before, but the conversation died down, so I have reopened this a new talk page post.

I have added Rober's full name and birth date a few times now, but they keep getting reverted by the same user. I believe they should remain.

Firstly, Rober's full name. The sources I added were a patent owned by Rober, this source from Inspirationfeed, and this source from Nairobi Wire. I am not sure if the patent passes WP:BLPPRIVACY, as I would assume this information has to be published publicly online. I also do not know if the other sources are reliable. I don't mind if Rober's middle name is not included because of these sources.

Next, his date of birth. The sources I used for that were the Wired article which was already on the page, as well as this tweet and this tweet from Rober's official Twitter account. The reliable Wired article was already on the page, and still is, so no discussion is required for that. The Twitter source was removed before because "Twitter is not usable", and just recently because I need to "have consensus". However, I believe that they are usable, and I am utterly confused as to why I need to seek consensus on the talk page for this. The sources pass WP:DOB, as they "published by [...] sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public," (i.e. Rober is posting these to his public Twitter account) and sources like this are used all over Wikipedia. Why do we need to seek consensus just for Rober?

Due to all of this, I believe that my additions (at least the DOB) should stay.

Thoughts? Strugglehouse (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I have sub-sectioned your header. I said above, the Twitter post is a perfectly acceptable way of verifying a date. The subject himself saying "it's my birthday" doesn't get any more "accurate" than that, and CNMall41's insistence that we need to have third-party sourcing for something that does not need to be is problematic. On the other hand, I see no reason to include his middle name. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac Thank you. I completely agree with you. The Wired article that is on the page actually says his middle initial ("B.") so I think we should just include that until a reliable source can be found for his full name. Strugglehouse (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@Primefac:, The only reason I am persistent is because WP:BLPPRIVACY would outweigh WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, I did find this which would could be considered the current consensus so I will relent based on that. I still feel we need to be sure about someone being willing to have their DOB published on Wikipedia and believe if more people knew it could be done based on a Tweet, they may reconsider. But consensus is consensus. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I am however unable to find anything that would support this. You have a patent with a middle name and an article with a middle initial. As "the standard for inclusion of personal information of livings persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified," there is no need to include these. Have these been "widely published" per WP:BLPPRIVACY? No. Maybe an RfC to reach a conclusion similar to this may be in order. But again, the need to adhere to BLP guidelines is stronger than your want to include a subject's middle name or even middle initial. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 His middle initial is widely published. See this Google search, this source, this source, and this source. It was already on this page completely fine, before you removed it. No one else has had a problem with it. Please stop removing correctly sourced information that follows Wikipedia rules. Strugglehouse (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Asking me to stop adhering to WP:BLPPRIVACY so you can circumvent WP:ONUS is strange to me. Consensus would be required so you will need to obtain such prior to adding it back in. If I can be shown I am wrong (like the DOB issue), I will gladly add it back myself. Until then, ONUS is on you. I do not consider the references you shown to meet "widely published."--CNMall41 (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Of course, if you feel that my conduct you are asking me to stop isn't appropriate, I am always open to sanctions from the appropriate venue.--CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 I am in no way asking you to stop following WP:BLPPRIVACY. That guideline reads that "Wikipedia includes full names [...] that have been widely published by reliable sources". I agree that the sources for his full middle name probably aren't reliable. But the ones for his middle initial are. I believe they are widely published, because there are so many of them. You removed some for being in violation of WP:OVERLINK. I assume you were referring to WP:OVERCITE? This proves that there are many sources for this, because it's overkill to include them all.

I also don't interpret WP:ONUS as "we need to seek consensus for the addition of any information", I see it as "someone may disagree with the addition of something, and that is when consensus is needed". Since you have disagreed with the addition of Rober's middle initial, then I suppose consensus would need to be found. I am happy to add another talk page entry to find consensus. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

You are correct with OVERCITE. My fingers do not always type what my brain is thinking so thanks for the correction. A new thread for consensus would be a good idea. I don't really care if it is added or not as long as it meets guidelines but feel that BLPPRIVACY is the primary criteria so it does not in my opinion. Removing the sources is not proof that it is widely cited as some of those sources wouldn't be reliable for citing that information anyway. They were removed as they were not necessary at this point. If you feel these sources meet the "widely published" definition and there is consensus they are reliable for that purpose, then adding them back will not be an issue. Right now, my main concern is following the process which is necessary, especially for a BLP, so thank you for finally acknowledging that. If this were an article about a company, I would have less gripe. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Okay. Thank you. I will write a new talk page entry to get consensus about this. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

On a separate note, if you are unable to generate consensus from a new thread, a RfC could be a good route. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

@CNMall41 Okay, thanks. Strugglehouse (talk) 19:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

CrunchLabs

Is there a way to add information on CrunchLabs? I am unable to edit the page as I am not an experienced editor. I would suggest adding the following, using the reference to Fast Company:

Rober is the co-founder of CrunchLabs, an educational technology company he launched in 2022. The company creates hands-on STEM learning experiences and subscription box services (CrunchLabs Build Box) that contain building projects and engineering challenges for kids.(https://www.fastcompany.com/90770755/mark-rober-crunchlabs-most-creative-people-2022) (https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2023/06/01/mit-mark-rober-youtube-2023-commencement/) BConsEPL (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that I needed to do more editing before being able to allowed this article. I went ahead and made the addition now. --BConsEPL (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2024

Add an image to the "Early Career (NASA)" section of Mark Rober at JPL showcasing the instrument which he designed. The said image can be extracted from his Youtube video "NASA's Curiosity landing- 1 of her creator's POV", seen at the timestamp 2:43. This edit is merely a request and if denied, shall be accepted. Gyan2008 (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We will need an image to be uploaded to Wikipedia first. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)