Talk:Weapons of Math Destruction

how can I add “Public interest technology” to related topics?

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 7 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Andrew.Greer123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Awy2006.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2021 and 11 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Syung97, DivineAtlas, Aayala99, Alexiselrich, Daniforwiki. Peer reviewers: BayPioneers2023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Further reading"
To be clear, 24 book reviews given as "further reading" is obviously excessive. They are not needed to establish notability because notability is obviously established by the book having won the Euler Book Prize. This is just listcruft. One or two notable reviews by more established peers in more substantial journals would obviously suffice. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries accused me of not having understood MOS:FURTHER, a personal attack. These are clearly references "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject", not "general references" (they are specifically about the book itself, not background) and not "citations that were used to create the article content" (they do not duplicate other references). The only argument is whether 24 reviews is "a reasonable number". I happen to think that it is. I think that, in articles about books, where feasible, all reliably published reviews of the books should be listed. It would be better to use them as actual sources for content, but if not they can be listed like this, in a further reading section. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Signals Data and Equity
— Assignment last updated by Listenintently (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)