Talk:Meredith Whittaker

Putting this to rest re: WP:POV pushing on a Discretionary Sanctions page
, and IP 72.28.93.169 I have added authoritative WP:RS that  establish the co-founding and founding of the two labs/research groups. Lets put this to rest now. ANd please avoid edits that push an agenda or point of view, per Neutral point of view. These edits you have added are not in keeping with that principle, and frankly border on conspiracy theory. Do note that this page has a Discretionary Sanctions template (above) which means that Administrators can act quickly to prevent you from editing this page in the future and/or ban you. --Theredproject (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

No, these sources are not WP:RS
The sources you added for Google Open Research are not WP:RS. "In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable; editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible." This does not apply to these news articles, which mention Google Open Research in passing only and in the same language as her self-provided bio. A source from, say, Google Research would be WP:RS (even if not for the claims at googlersagainstdeceit.blogspot.com).

As for M-Lab, yes that source appears to now exist; it was added on December 13, four days before your recent edit, and the same day as her appearance at NeurIPS. Given that timing and the low quality of the citations you added, your accusation that the edits 'border on conspiracy theory' appears to be in particularly bad faith, as is threatening me (and the authors of the more recent edits) with sanctions because of a 'Discretionary Sanctions' template you added yourself after reverting my edits in September. This violates multiple principles of etiquette and exposes you to the same potential sanctions.

At the very least, the claim of 'founding Google Open Research' should be removed as it is not verifiable. If you find this objectionable, I suggest dispute resolution via 3O or DRN may be appropriate until an authoritative source can be established.

Distinguished Research Scientist
Can somebody verify why a research professor would be called a "distinguished research scientist" ? Is there any source for this claim ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:5600:7850:4CF0:9996:BBC0:75A8 (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Per this press release it is a title that they give to some researchers. The assertion that she is (was?) one can be found in a number of secondary sources, but neither this article nor her NYU page make that claim currently. Stellaathena (talk) 06:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)