Talk:Frances Haugen

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mjbenite.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion without first assessing for consensus to keep or delete core information

The deletion in question was of important and well sourced information. Wikipedia readers should not be deprived of seeing same. Activist (talk) 00:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook's stock valuation dropped by six billion dollars within 21 hours of the whistleblower's appearance on Sixty Minutes. This whistleblower sure sounds "notable" to me. Activist (talk) 00:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

^ Not a notability guideline. KidAd • SPEAK 00:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I just Googled her name. I got 32,300,000 hits. Activist (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Try bringing WP:GOOGLEHITS to an AfD. See how that works out for you. KidAd • SPEAK 02:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There is world coverage on multiple national media. The Washington Post leaks already got notable attention as well. Notable. We are just wasting time. Yug (talk) 🐲 03:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This article got over 2,500 views in the first hours it was up. Per its history, KidAd nominated it for deletion early on. It's also been nominated for a move. Activist (talk) 08:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Again, WP:POPULARPAGE and WP:GOOGLEHITS arguments are weak. Also, your assertion that KidAd nominated it for deletion early on is incorrect. No editor has nominated this page for deletion. KidAd • SPEAK 19:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the deletion of this article. MattClowers (talk) 18:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Facebook papers

The leak apparently been dumbed "The Facebook papers". Could be interesting to consider. Yug (talk) 🐲 04:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Yug (talk) 🐲 14:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Attack on authority

 Done Yug (talk) 🐲 18:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

> She has never held a job at any technology company for more than two years continuously

Seems like a poor attack on authority. We continuously listen to people discuss tech with limited understandings, if the data she is leaking is legit then what does this descriptor matter? I am keen on removing it tbh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIckyMedia (talk • contribs) 16:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I personally disagree with removing this article because this is an issue pertaining to current events and the people who do their research on Wikipedia deserve to have all the information that Wikipedia has is made available to them. MattClowers (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Wait, hollup Matt, did you put that comment in the right place? This section is to do with the criticism. Perhaps you wanted to put that comment in the deletion section above? Either way I've responded as if you believe the criticism should be re-instated: — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIckyMedia (talk • contribs) 08:52, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Its fair to disagree but speaking as a contractor that has created a huge amount of value for industry via 2 year stints at various organisations (I've contributed to the daily routine of millions of people via those contracts) I feel that attacking someone's tenure at "merely" two years is a fumbling attempt to cast doubt on their authority, especially since leaking documentation isn't even a position that _requires_ authority. The leak can speak for itself. The original unsubstantiated criticism actually even went further to claim that she "falsely" claimed to be a co-founder of the Hinge application and I've encountered hearsay of much better quality than a random wiki edit (hearsay from the tech community) that this is true. Either way, we shouldn't re-instate the criticism unless we can find a source for it and even then it doesn't deserve prominence. A subsection called "criticism" is more standard, isn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIckyMedia (talk • contribs) 08:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

TheIckyMedia, per WP:BLPREMOVE, I agree with your rapid deletion of the unsourced addition of content that was more than what you copied here (and I won't fully copy per WP:BLPTALK) including because in addition to the apparent BLP violation, the assertion that she never held a job at a technology company for more than two years, per the reliable sources in the article, appears to be false. Also, please sign and date your messages by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your messages. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support for removal. Seems a guided attack. Yug (talk) 🐲 18:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ABC News and various other RSS characterized the negative allegations against her as an apparent attempt by Facebook delivered through a spokesperson in an effort to discredit her testimony. I think it should remain in the article and be so characterized. [1] Activist (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Activist, that reference is not what had been added to the article. There also already seems to be a possible WP:COATRACK issue developing with a recent edit to the article [2] that doesn't necessarily seem like an encyclopedic fit in the Impact section, and with regard to isolated criticism, I think we should consider WP:PROPORTION and how it may apply. Beccaynr (talk) 22:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC) - update: edits after this comment seem to have resolved the concern, now struck Beccaynr (talk) 23:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a note about the claim: it is factually untrue that she has not worked at a single technology company for more than 2 years. obvious COI so I won't go beyond that. (updated) ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also clearly untrue based on the reliable sources in the article. ErikHaugen, please feel free to use this Talk page to suggest changes to the article and if possible, sources to support the change, and thank you for disclosing a COI - the linked guideline has more information about COIs, and you can also review the Help page for Biographies of living persons. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

ErikHaugen, I should have first checked your userpage, my apologies for posting what you already know, Beccaynr (talk) 23:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Data Engineer or Scientist

I see its been edited to state she is both a data engineer AND data scientist. From my understanding, its unusual to be both, techies are usually engineers and people that want to assert facts using data science are usually closer to the domain and the science and are the "data scientists". Do we have a source that states her title at Facebook or does she claim both being a data engineer and scientist? Its entirely plausible she wore both hats but you'd expect at Facebook that the resource would be available to offer scientists support of engineers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIckyMedia (talk • contribs) 16:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The new sources are not consistent about her role at Facebook, but it's common for media to have confusion about technical roles and titles at tech companies. According to her own website, she was a product manager at Facebook, which would be the most consistent explanation. Glaucus (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The lead reflects reliable sources that discuss more than her roles at Facebook, and summarizes sourced content in the article, so I have reverted the removal of reliably-sourced content, and it appears that further discussion would be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

What sources specifically? The only ones I can find in the citations that claim she was a data scientist or data engineer claim that she held that role at Facebook, which is directly contradicted by more reliable and accurate resources, including her own resume. If you have a reliable source claiming that she held a data engineer or data scientist role at a company other than Facebook, please link it. Glaucus (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

As a start, there is Frances Haugen, the data engineer determined to temper Facebook (AFP/France24, May 10, 2021, "The 37-year-old data scientist [...] A computer engineer, Haugen describes herself as a specialist in algorithms"), and this profile describes her as a "Data Scientist & Engineer, Advocate for Accountability & Transparency in Social Media".

Also, reports about her work, e.g. from the Guardian, Oct. 23, 2021: "Before she left Facebook, Haugen worked on the company’s civic integrity team which, before it was disbanded, had been tasked with monitoring electoral interference on the platform", offer another way to describe her work.

In the article, there is also e.g. The education of Frances Haugen: How the Facebook whistleblower learned to use data as a weapon from years in tech (WaPo, Oct. 11, 2021, incidentally noting, "Facebook has painted her as a low-level employee speaking about subjects on which she lacks direct knowledge" before discussing her work at Facebook, her education, and work elsewhere). From my view, there is sufficient support for the description in the lead, which is intended to summarize key points from the article, per MOS:LEAD. Beccaynr (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

The AFP article conflates data engineering and data scientist roles (likely a translation/localization issue), and implies that her role at Facebook was as a data scientist, which is contradicted by other more reliable sources. Her description as a 'computer engineer' is irrelevant, as that is a very different role than data engineer or data scientist, and her bachelors degree subject is not under dispute.

I'm not sure what your point is with the Guardian article since it explicitly describes her as a product manager "In May this year she left her position as a product manager at the social media giant" and never describes her role differently.

I'm also not sure what your point is about the WaPo quote, but one could interpret it as making a bad faith claim. That would be quite confusing, because in the power hierarchy of tech companies, product managers are higher and more influential than data engineers or data scientists.

Note that nowhere in the article itself is she described as a data engineer or data scientist, nor does her biography ever describe her as holding a role other than product manager. Including that only in the lead is not consistent, nor does it contribute to the reader's understanding of the subject. If her role as a data engineer was important, then it would surely also be included and described in the article itself. Glaucus (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

From my view, it is a disservice to our readers and contrary to MOS:LEAD to only refer to her as a "product manager" without incorporating sources that add detail and depth as to what this role (in addition to her other work) actually involved. I also do not think we should assume the Agence France-Presse is having a translation/localization issue when they report on her work. We also seem to be warned by the incidental mention in WaPo against using language that may inadvertantly but inaccurately diminish her education, experience, and role at Facebook. I do not think we can assume that a typical reader will understand what a "product manager" at Facebook is without information from the variety of sources that add encyclopedic depth, including those that use terminology such as 'data engineer' and 'data scientist'. I think we should apply the usual format when writing a biographical article and use general terminology to describe her activities in addition to specifics, because the general terms appear to have support in multiple reliable sources. Beccaynr (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Also, additional sources include: "a data scientist from Iowa" (CBS News, 2021), "a former data scientist at Facebook" (NPR, 2021), "Data scientist Frances Haugen" (Independent, 2021), "Haugen is a data engineer" (Forbes profile), "former data engineer at Facebook" (Getty, 2022), "former Facebook data scientist" (NEA, 2022), "US data engineer Frances Haugen" (Sydney Morning Herald, 2022). Beccaynr (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

These sources are not reliable in the context of technical role names and descriptions, not least because they are not consistent. Those are general news sites, not domain specific, and so not reliable for technical jargon like job titles. Data engineer, data scientist, and product manager are distinct roles at Facebook. According to her own biographic sources, she held only one of those roles at Facebook, thus any source claiming she was a 'data scientist' or 'data engineer' at Facebook is confused about what a product manager is and what her role was. WP:BLP says to be conservative, and in this case the sources are consistent only that she was a product manager, not a data engineer. If you wish to add additional, well-cited, context to the article itself covering the role of a product manager at Facebook to better explain, that would be the best course. Removing those descriptions from the lead does not diminish her 'education, experience, or role' at Facebook (or else omitting it entirely from the rest of the article would). Glaucus (talk) 21:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, her own bio makes no claim of either title, noting instead she's a "specialist in algorithmic product management". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

And her bio on Twitter says "Data Scientist". Her own website begins "Frances Haugen is an advocate for accountability & transparency in social media" and focuses on her advocacy work, so it does not appear to be evidence of absence of data engineer or data scientist activities otherwise reported over time in a wide range of independent and reliable sources.

Also, this is a general-interest encyclopedia, not a technical manual, built by multiple independent and reliable sources. In the link previously cited above for 'the usual format,' which includes MOS:OPENPARABIO, the lead can include One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for. There are a wide range of independent and reliable sources available to support the lead as it is, including because the lead describes more than just her work at Facebook. Beccaynr (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Outline

Please help around on the outline. The section title "Impact" is overly broad. This leak is really interesting and deserve more subsections. Maybe by testimonies (US congress, UK, France), maybe by topics (negative impact on teens, polarization in USA ; in foreign countries ; espionage and hostile operations). Once sections are drafted, content is easier to come in. Yug (talk) 🐲 19:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For the specific topics of the document leak, the Facebook Files article could be further developed to focus on the content of the documents. I have edited the subsection titles for now, including because it is not currently clear whether there will be future testimony before other legislative bodies besides the UK. Also, the Federal Trade Commission is an administrative agency, and it is not currently clear whether there will be testimony in the future. But I am thinking about other subsections that could improve readability of the article content. Beccaynr (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

+1 for the recent outline improvements ! Yug (talk) 🐲 18:43, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Whistleblower Aid

I created a barebones draft for Whisleblower Aid. I think it warrants its own article. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Noticed. Thank you 💪🏼 Yug (talk) 🐲 07:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Other sources

• Nobel Price Maria Ressa, reacting after Haugen testimonies, said FB algorithm is biaised against facts. -- The Guardian Yug (talk) 🐲 18:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

I was writing this to the IP after I reverted their addition, but after Dr Fell restored it [3], I will post my response here: The added information from a primary source about the subject appears WP:UNDUE, particularly in how it was placed so prominently in the article, above the information from secondary sources about her testimony and communication with bipartisan members of Congress. Please also review WP:PROPORTION, e.g. An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

If undue prominence were an issue, the correct edit would be to relocate this addition beneath the "Career" section. The addition is a single line is hardly out of proportion to the remainder of the article. This information is verifiable and impartial, but also highly relevant to the article. The issues raised by Ms Haugen were, if not inherently political, quickly politicized. Understanding her own affiliations and views are important. Concealing the political views of political figures is troubling. Contra the suggestion of disproportionality, many such articles on Wikipedia describe a figure's political stances in the leading paragraph. Mention of Ms Haugen's political donations should be restored immediately.Dr Fell (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, While information must be verifiable to be included in an article, not all verifiable information needs to be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. You have offered a primary source and WP:SYNTH to imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source, in an article that is primarily focused on her disclosures to The Wall Street Journal and bipartisan members of Congress. It therefore appears to be inappropriate per Wikipedia policy to include this information at this time, including because these appear to be events that are isolated from the article topic and are not being reported by reliable secondary sources as significant. Beccaynr (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This information is extremely relevant and highly pertinent. This information does not imply a conclusion nor was it sourced by the Wall Street Journal, but rather the Federal Election Commission. The FEC collects and publishes this information in the interest of promoting transparency. Ms Haugen's own site declares an "advocate for public oversight of social media" – a self-declaration that is she is a political figure. It's essential for readers to understand her views. Her history of political donations figure into this and provide necessary context. Dr Fell (talk) 23:16, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

This justification seems like a use of WP:PRIMARY material for which the original research policy encourages care, because it is easy to misuse them. There appears to be synthesis between a primary source statement about her being an advocate, interpreted here as political, used to justify the use of another primary source, which is otherwise disconnected from anything else currently in the article. I have reviewed a lot of material related to Haugen and I do not recall reliable WP:SECONDARY sources discussing her political donations or views as pertinent and relevant. I mention this because the policy states, Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Therefore, the primary source alone does not appear to be sufficient for inclusion at this time. I had mentioned the The Wall Street Journal and bipartisan members of Congress because she disclosed documents to them, according to a wide variety of WP:SECONDARY sources that focus on her role as a whistleblower. Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, there is the policy that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, i.e. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources, which relates to my concern above about the need to contextualize this information with reliable WP:SECONDARY sources in order to consider it for inclusion in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The original material was not misused and no analysis or claim was provided. Ms Haugen is a self-identified political advocate. As a political advocated, including detailed information about her political affiliations and views is not only justified, it’s necessary. There does not appear to be a synthesis as no analysis, claim or interpretation was made. What a reader might make of this information is independent of its relevance. Again, her history of political donations is essential context and must be restored. Far from being "indiscriminate" information, it's commonly featured on many articles related to public figures, including those not primarily known for their political involvement. Dr Fell (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The content is a personal analysis from a WP:PRIMARY source, so adding it will violate WP:OR. - SUN EYE 1 13:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, WP:BLPPRIMARY includes, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use [...] public documents, to support assertions about a living person. [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. And the information is not 'concealed', because as noted above, it is available on the FEC website, if we assume the names are a correct match. The issue appears to be whether the information at this time can be added to this article in compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and it does not appear possible at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Should her political affiliations be discussed?

While it may seem like political scapegoating, the link (https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=frances+haugen) I left does show that she donated money to the DSCC. Now, you may expect this to be another person with the same name, and it does seem like there is one in Vermont, but there is one Frances Haugen in California who did donate at three different careers, at Facebook in 2020 as a project manager, and ones before in Gigster and Pinterest. One of the donations was to Theresa Greenfield (an Iowa congress candidate) which would indicate it was the same Frances as here since she is from Iowa. The career position of Project Manager is also shown in the donation.

This is only mentioned in conservative news sources and some neutral ones. It is virtually not mentioned in any mainstream outlet. I believe it is honest to mention this. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I honestly don't see what her political affiliation or donation history has to do with her reason for notability. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Explain why a political article should not give the political background of the person involved? There are plenty of pages where the political views of obscure figures (James Damore and his 15 seconds of fame in 2017) or unclearly politically defined figures (J Edgar Hoover) are discussed. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It depends on whether we have appropriate sources to support the content. For example, WP:BLPPRIMARY states, Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use [...] public documents, to support assertions about a living person. [...] Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. In this instance, we do not appear to have a reliable primary source nor independent and reliable secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

This has also been discussed at my Talk page, and my reply included: per WP:ELYES, the information must be accurate, and this is a primary source that does not clearly identify the subject. It also seems questionable as to whether this information is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject, because there does not appear to have been secondary commentary or analysis from independent and reliable sources about it. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID, this appears to be within #2, due to the potential to mislead the reader by describing the content as "political donations" even though it contains unverifiable research. The analysis on the potential connections appears to be a form of original research, which is prohibited. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

much speculation on the buzzFeed dossier against Trump was unverified yet published as fact on this site for many years. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 03:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a very strong argument, tho. ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

it just shows this site seems to be institutionally biased. whenever moral questions arise against republicans, socialists, libertarians, etc. its guilty until proven innocent, but whenever democrats, esp. progressive democrats and occasionally leftists like antifa, they are innocent until proven guilty. FIREYSUNSET (talk) 04:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Size of Facebook Civic Integrity Team

Beccaynr there are not multiple RS claiming that the "civic integrity department" was "3-4" people. There is a single, ambiguous interview where Haugen states that "her team working on this" was "3-4 people". From context, it is not at all clear that she is talking about the "Civic Integrity team" (she never uses the word 'department'), or the Civic Misinformation team. Inferring that she's talking about Civic Integrity rather than her specific sub team is itself OR. From other reliable sources, we know that she was the PM of the Civic Misinformation team, which was part of the larger Civic Integrity org. Thus, the most consistent interpretation is that she is talking about the specific team she was PMing (Civic Misinformation). Glaucus (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

After clarifying the preceding sentence based on its source, I removed this from the article - it is not clearly attributed to Haugen, and there does seem to be some ambiguity in what is being discussed in the interview that is not clearly articulated by this sentence:

This department consisted of 3-4 employees while the global counterespionage team consisted of only 6 people, allowing them to only work on about a third of the cases they knew about.

I am also not sure that this is necessary to include in the article, and I expect that there are better sources available if including a more clear version of this content seems to benefit this article.

Beccaynr (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I find it interesting, that neither of you, Glaucus and Beccaynr bothered to address me, in your reverts or your "discussion". I feel Haugen was clear in what she said and NOT ambiguous. There was no inference and no OR.I find, you dont like this to be in there. If you find a better wording or source you can replace it, but you cannot just delete it--Wuerzele (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC).

References