Talk:Gemma Galdón-Clavell

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women in Red: Women's leadership & empowerment (2021)

This article was created or improved during the Women's leadership & empowerment edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Red project from August to September 2021. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in RedWikipedia:WikiProject Women in RedTemplate:WikiProject Women in RedWomen in Red articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

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The result was: withdrawn by nominator, closed by Victuallers (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

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).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
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.
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: - Almost, but "surveillance, security and urban policy" is taken from the uab.cat site, that should be changed

Hook eligibility:

Cited: - AGF on ALT0, but ALT1 and ALT2 are sourced to Forbes Contributors, which are not reliable enough. See WP:RSP
Interesting: - 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.

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: This nomination needs a lot of work, but I think it's doable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Another thought for a hook: Galdon says that data is not the new oil. See note 4. [1])

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)[reply]

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)[reply]