Talk:Human-in-the-loop

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Systems

	Systems science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.SystemsWikipedia:WikiProject SystemsTemplate:WikiProject SystemsSystems articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There does not appear to be a consensus to merge the articles at this time. Gusfriend (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User-in-the-loop ---> Human-in-the-loop

Currently there are two related articles

Human-in-the-loop, current version
User-in-the-loop, current version

There is a third term which various sources also use, "Worker-in-the-loop". "User" and "worker" are subtypes of the "human" model. All of these refer to how humans and machine interact in online spaces. For example, Wikipedia has WP:Automated moderation processes which bots run. Humans review the suggestions which robots present, with some of those humans being typical Wikipedia volunteers ("users") and others of those humans being paid workers. Lots of online spaces have this machine / human interaction, and there is a distinction between how end-users socialize with machines versus the relationships that paid workers will have in the same spaces.

I propose that content from the user article get merged to the human article. The human article is the more general concept and also it is getting more pageview traffic as measured with Wikipedia's own metrics tools. These are not well known concepts and do not appear in a lot of popular media, but an example source which is less technical and which describes all three concepts is

Akilian, Michael (30 December 2019). "Worker-in-the-loop Retrospective". akilian.com.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors of these articles include @Rainer.schoenen, Dsimic, and Brian heim composer: @Sidna, Nazrok, and HereToHelp:. I did not see any recent active editors. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merger. The two articles seem to be on an identical topic with people from different fields coming to nearly-identical language. I prefer the name "Human-in-the-loop" as the broadest form of this name as previously discussed. How much consensus is needed before we make this change? --74.116.50.22 (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as the topics of the articles are quite different. User-in-the-loop is about how systems benefit from human involvement in processes, while Human-in-the-loop is about simulation involving humans as part of a system, mostly in the context of training. I think that all we need is a hatnote at the top of each article, distinguishing the scope of each page. Klbrain (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I came here due to the closure request but I do not think that there is enough feedback do determine consensus (or at least for me to close it). Rather than close it I suggest that a notice is posted on the computing and process WikiProject Talk pages and other appropriate WikiProjects. Gusfriend (talk) 07:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree with @Bluerasberry's assessment that User-in-the-loop could be seen as a subset of Human-in-the-loop but I can't build a verifiable case for that. These two concepts were developed separately and the articles have non-overlapping sources. Until we find a source that discusses their relationship, I don't think we can make a good decision about this merge and so things should stay as they are. In the meantime, addition of hat notes would be helpful. ~Kvng (talk) 15:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.