User:ZBlalock/Evaluate an Article

Evaluate an article
This is where you will complete your article evaluation. Please use the template below to evaluate your selected article.


 * Name of article: (AI control problem)
 * Briefly describe why you have chosen this article to evaluate.

I chose this article because it is relevant to an engineer's efforts to improving joy of life. AI poses many potential risks, so understanding the AI control problem will be useful in knowing its limits.

Lead

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?

Yes - the introductory sentence both describes the disciplines in which the subject is rooted as well as provides a surface-level explanation of what the article will discuss.


 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?

Yes - the Lead explains the two primary strategies to the control problem, which the article highlights in its major sections


 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?

No - all information in the Lead is elaborated on later in the article.


 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

The Lead is concise - it is easily readable and after reading it I understand what the article will discuss.

Content

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article's content relevant to the topic?

Yes - all information is relevant to the problem (either describing the problem or explaining one of the two strategies)


 * Is the content up-to-date?

Yes - the article has been consistently updated this month. A few days ago some editors finalized the decision to not merge this article with Friendly Artificial Intelligence.


 * Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

Yes - there is some content missing. An editor mentioned Paul Christiano, who seems to be a prominent figurehead of AI alignment. He is not present in the Wikipedia article.


 * Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No - there are no issues related to equity gaps in this article.

Tone and Balance

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article neutral?

Yes - the article is neutral, although it leans to support one strategy for controlling AI over another. This is supported by credible, neutral sources that argue the same points.


 * Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No - although the article does highlight one strategy as being more probable than the other, this is not caused by a bias.


 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

No - the strategy that is described as "less probable" is not underrepresented; in fact, it contains more information than the "more probable" strategy (due to the fact that more research has been conducted)


 * Does the article attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

Yes - anyone reading the article with no prior information is likely to support alignment, whereas someone with previous knowledge would view it neutrally.

Sources and References

 * Guiding questions


 * Are all facts in the article backed up by a reliable secondary source of information?

Yes - each paragraph has multiple citations to reliable sources


 * Are the sources thorough - i.e. Do they reflect the available literature on the topic?

No - as I described in the content section, there is significant information relating to the Control Problem that is not included in this article.


 * Are the sources current?

Yes - this article has multiple references to studies published in 2020. As this problem is fairly current, there are no references to articles published before 2000.


 * Are the sources written by a diverse spectrum of authors? Do they include historically marginalized individuals where possible?

Yes - scanning the references, there is a wide assortment of authors from different backgrounds.


 * Check a few links. Do they work?

Yes - I sampled 10 random references, and each link was valid.

Organization

 * Guiding questions


 * Is the article well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

Somewhat - the article includes some verbiage that may not be suitable for the article. The article includes phrases like "have some distinctive capabilities" or "probably extremely difficult." It is digestible, however.


 * Does the article have any grammatical or spelling errors?

No - I did not catch any spelling or grammar errors.


 * Is the article well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

Yes - the article's organization made it easy to understand what each section's content would describe.

Images and Media

 * Guiding questions


 * Does the article include images that enhance understanding of the topic?

No - the article has no images


 * Are images well-captioned?

N/A - the article has no images


 * Do all images adhere to Wikipedia's copyright regulations?

N/A


 * Are the images laid out in a visually appealing way?

N/A

Checking the talk page

 * Guiding questions


 * What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

The largest talking point (that was very recently resolved) was a proposition to merge this article with another article as described in the Content section. Other editors have proposed a rewrite from the ground up, which is currently in progress.


 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

The article has a C-classification, likely due to the chunks of information not included in the article and the lack of visual aids. The article is a part of the Artificial Intelligence series, located in the Philosophy section.


 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

In class, we are free to take stances and support an argument about a topic. However, on Wikipedia, the article strives to remain neutral and unbiased. Neither our class discussions nor Wikipedia are superior to the other; they simply accomplish different things.

Overall impressions

 * Guiding questions


 * What is the article's overall status?

The article is C-class


 * What are the article's strengths?

The article provides a solid foundation for an emerging problem with new studies being developed right now.


 * How can the article be improved?

The lack of images makes the article look daunting, there is some language that could be combed over and refined, and there is some key information readily available that has not been included in the article.


 * How would you assess the article's completeness - i.e. Is the article well-developed? Is it underdeveloped or poorly developed?

I would argue that the article is not poorly developed, but underdeveloped. It is an excellent basis that needs an extra push to get a higher classification.

Optional activity

 * Choose at least 1 question relevant to the article you're evaluating and leave your evaluation on the article's Talk page. Be sure to sign your feedback

with four tildes — ~


 * Link to feedback: