Template:Did you know nominations/Gemma Galdon

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk| {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Template||}}
 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Victuallers (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

{{DYK conditions}} {{DYK header|Gemma Galdon}} {{DYK nompage links|nompage=Gemma Galdon|Gemma Galdon}} {{main page image/DYK|image=(Gemma Galdon) Re publica 2015 - Tag 2 (16766735164) (cropped).jpg|caption=Galdon in 2015}}
 * ... that Gemma Galdon (pictured), who works to make artificial intelligence accountable, is said to be "changing the world"? Source: "accountable and BBC says change maker
 * ALT1:... that Gemma Galdon (pictured) says that "I'm just the tech guy", is not an excuse for bias, when algorithms behave badly? Source: "[the pitfalls of algorithms, the dangers of an “I’m just the tech guy” attitude, and how to help technologists overcome bias" https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2021/04/26/make-algorithmic-audits-as-ubiquitous-as-seatbeltswhy-tech-needs-outside-help-to-serve-humanity/?sh=727d9c5349a1]
 * ALT2:... that Gemma Galdon (pictured) says that when biased algorithms misbehave you cannot claim, "I'm just the tech guy"? Source: "[the pitfalls of algorithms, the dangers of an “I’m just the tech guy” attitude, and how to help technologists overcome bias" https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashoka/2021/04/26/make-algorithmic-audits-as-ubiquitous-as-seatbeltswhy-tech-needs-outside-help-to-serve-humanity/?sh=727d9c5349a1]
 * Reviewed: Marthe Yankurije

Created by Kippelboy (talk) and Victuallers (talk). Nominated by Victuallers (talk) at 09:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC).


 * {{DYK checklist

}}
 * newness     = y
 * length      = y
 * eligibilityother =
 * sourced     = y
 * neutral     = The section concerning the Ashoka Fellowship seems to be unbalanced. I'd prefer if the organization's quote about her was removed, and the puffery from the second sentence there should be toned down too.
 * plagiarismfree = Almost, but "surveillance, security and urban policy" is taken from the uab.cat site, that should be changed
 * policyother =
 * hookcited   = AGF on ALT0, but ALT1 and ALT2 are sourced to Forbes Contributors, which are not reliable enough. See WP:RSP
 * hookinterest = I don't really like any of these hooks—the first is unbalanced, and the second and third are just expressing her viewpoint. I guess the second and third could be counted as interesting, but I don't quite approve of them.
 * hookother   =
 * picfree     = y
 * picused     = y
 * picclear    = y
 * qpq         = y
 * status      = maybe
 * comments    = This nomination needs a lot of work, but I think it's doable.
 * sign        = theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg There may be some valid points (eg Forbes is not a great source) above put this woman is campaigning and the review seems to object to the idea that she has opinions and that these are included in the hooks. I don't believe we have a DYK rule that says an opinion cannot be included in a hook and "I don't like it" is not a valid argument. 3rd opinion please. Victuallers (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * {{re|Victuallers}} all right, I'll ease up on my barrier for hookiness. To be clear, I don't think that any hook with an opinion is invalid; but I do believe that "person has opinion on thing" doesn't always make the cut for reasonable hookiness. I won't torpedo the entire nomination over this. But I'm rejecting ALT2, given its use of personal pronouns, and ALT0 and ALT1 are going to need some workshopping. And upon closer inspection, this article has some primary sourcing and non-neutral phrasing I'm still not comfortable with. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:08, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * {{tq|review seems to object to the idea that she has opinions and that these are included in the hooks.}} I'm sorry if I wasn't clear about it, but this isn't what i thought. I don't object to her having opinions, and of course she's allowed to have them—I just didn't think that "person has opinion" is interesting as a standalone. I'll work with it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:15, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll stand back ... the Forbes piece appears to be written by an Ashoka "expert" and it concerns one of their fellows views. This might be considered a good enough source (it also mirrored on the Ashoka site}. I see your idea, about opinions, but "US President thinks injecting bleach might cure covid" would in my opinion be a pretty good hook. Victuallers (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, there's a certain unexpectedness about said U.S. president claiming that people should inject bleach to cure covid, which gives it its hookiness, imo. There is some hookiness to the quote itself, which is admittedly rather snappy—I feel like this article might have more potential than that, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Another thought for a hook: Galdon says that data is not the new oil. See note 4. )
 * I'm willing to take that hook as interesting, but Victuallers, the article is going to need an edit for POV before it's ready for the front page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and Joofjoof for his/her positive contribution. I'm too busy at the mo to address your many points, which I do not find inspiring. Victuallers (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

|}}