Talk:Timnit Gebru/Archive 1

Archive 1

Birth place

In response to the recent edit describing her as an Eritrean scientist, I did some digging into her birth place. The article says Gebru was born and raised in Ethiopia, per this source. However, she is described elsewhere as Ethiopian born, but ethnic Eritrean. On her personal twitter she describes herself as Eritrean born. I'm not sure about the best way to deal with this, happy to leave it the way it is now (with Eritrean scientist, but born and raised in Ethiopia), but not sure if that is confusing. Achaea (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Career and Research

I wanted to develop the career and research section of the article by adding more research Gebru has done. I found an article Q + A: Timnit Gebruwhere Jackie Snow of MIT interviews Timnit Gebru about how biases get into machine learning software and how diversity in the technology space can help minimize those biases. Gebru discusses how there are biases in what engineers and researchers think is important.

Zgriffin3309 (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Zgriffin3309 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Nationality

Do any reliable sources describe her as either Eritrean-American or Ethiopian-American—or, for that matter, American? We can't say that she is without reliable sources. See WP:RS and WP:BLP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/12/03/timnit-gebru-google-fired/) uses Ethiopian American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunkki-1970 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Statements disputed by the parties

The NYT is rather careful to attribute the competing claims, and I think we should to. It seems that Google and Dr. Gebru disagree over whether she was fired or resigned. There also seems to be a lack of clarity over whether anyone asked for or offered specific alterations to the paper before the dispute escalated, which would seem important and is currently missing from the article. And Google said they accepted what they saw as her (non-immediate) resignation, and only accelerated it because of a critical post about the dispute which she made to an internal support-group mailing list; they say they did not immediately terminate her employment over either the refusal to withdraw the paper or her statement about resignation. This probably also needs mentioning. At the moment "accepted her resignation on the same day" also contradicts some of the earlier statements. The lede also seems a bit unbalanced; she was fairly well-known for other things before this dispute happened. HLHJ (talk) 06:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I just counted, 24 of the 50 sources for this article are about her departure, so I don't think the lead is UNDUEly large concerning her departure, though more about her background and history could definitely be added to the lead. ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2019 and 6 December 2019.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Lede is very long and overly detailed

An edit I did to make the lede more concise for readings was reverted due to critical nature of its importance. As someone new to this subject (and the topic of AI), it was a bit much for an introduction. I understand Avatar317's revision (and thank you for recognizing good faith), I don't feel a revision sufficiently addresses my issues as a reader. Can it be reworked by a more experienced editor? Also -- the revision of that entire portion of work is frustrating, given that I reworked a lot of redundancy in the body of the article. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole:1) It would be helpful if you did your edits in smaller chunks, that way contentious edits can be reverted while the others can remain. A separate change of the body and the lead could then be kept separate.

2) In my comment two threads above: "I just counted, (Jan 2021) 24 of the 50 sources for this article are about her departure, so I don't think the lead is UNDUEly large concerning her departure, though more about her background and history could definitely be added to the lead." - I still agree that the lead is NOT too large, but could be improved by adding more summary of her background and accomplishments.

3) Just because you as a reader want/think something should be some way is not the way things are done here: Wikpedia has policies about how articles should be structured and what content belongs. (For example, content about AI does NOT belong here unless the source specifically mentions Gebru or her work.)

Thank you for your other edits, which did improve the article. ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot, this link explains some of that relevant policy: WP:MOSLEAD "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[3]" ---Avatar317^(talk) 21:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: I do see your comments about the lede on another section here now, I apologize for not checking the talk page first to see if this had been discussed already. I'll work on further breaking up my edits in the future, and recognize why those two edits didn't really belong together. Thank you for your detailed response, and for your compliments. I've been learning a lot and the help you and other editors have given me to navigate Wikipedia are very much appreciated. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Avatar317: Had a go at reworking the lede, along with additional talking points, as you mentioned. Thanks again. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 23:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Timnit Gebru/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@SquareInARoundHole: I'm reviewing this as part of the ongoing backlog drive. I should have the first part of the review up for you in the next 24 hours. Thank you for your work on this immediately interesting article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! I am working on addressing your feedback. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 10:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

An unfortunate conflict just lost me an hour of work on addressing feedback, I'll come back again later. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

So sorry! I've never had it quite that bad but I know the feeling. When you do come back, could you please interpolate your responses into my feedback. Just "done" is fine if that's all there is to say. Meant to say that earlier. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. Taking another break. Cheers. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 20:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   See notes below.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   My one MOS:LEAD concern (mentioned below) was partially addressed

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   See notes below. I indicated which sources have reliability concern, having checked many. Most I checked are reliable and do verify the content.

   C. It contains no original research:

   See notes below.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No copyvio. False positives in the Earwig tool and nothing of concern in Googled phrases. One note about WP:CLOP below.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   There are some broad stroke bio sources available and nothing major isn't covered.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   See notes below.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

This is a fail because the nominator is banned. I hope to see the improvements below implemented and this article re-nominated sometime soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

GA notes

• Overall
  • Some content is cited only to short bios on pages about events/conferences/classes. These tend to be supplied by the speaker herself and can be quite promotional. Please review these to see what can be sourced to something more reliable and what needs to be removed.
• Lead
  • Why is the Bloomberg source used inline for "American" in the lead? Is there some oblique way it verifies the descriptor? Done.
  • "is the founder of the Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute" Done.
  • Either the DAIR content on the body needs expansion or it's given too lengthy a treatment in the lead. Probably just "She is the founder of Distributed Artificial Intelligence Research Institute (DAIR)" would be enough. Done.
  • Closer to source: "World's 50 Greatest Leaders" Done.
  • The controversy surrounding her exit from Google is a major aspect of her biography and is rightly given lengthy coverage in the body. As it stands, the controversy is given a disproportionately large amount of explanation in the lead. The best solution for this is probably to expand other parts of the lead, which could do more to summarize other parts of the article. I also think a trim of the controversy content would be an improvement (are all the paper's details required?). Partially done.
• Early life
  • Can the Forbes source be replaced? See WP:FORBESCON. Done.
  • Does any source besides Forbes mention her father's electrical engineering work and PhD? If so, might be due for a short mention here. Done.
  • Please expand on why her family needed political asylum. Done.
  • The bit about her high school experience and police encounter is uncomfortably close paraphrase of the Time source. It might help to incorporate information from other sources that mention that time in her life. (e.g. Wired)
  • I don't think the MIT Tech Review source supports her getting her dissertation in 2017, unless it's in the video (which is not available via the archive url).
  • Please mention that Fei-Fei Li advised Gebru during her PhD program and provide a source, needed to support the infobox mention. Done.
  • "an encounter Gebru experienced with the police" → "an encounter with the police" or "an experience" Done.
  • "accepted to study at Stanford University" → "accepted at Stanford University" Done.
  • Is there a secondary source for her LDV Capital win? Done.
  • What does "the demographics" mean in "experiences with the police, the demographics"? Removed.
• Apple
  • Wired doesn't verify her Apple internship being in 2004 (though it's a reasonable guess). "While at Stanford" would be fine if no source gives the year. Done. Seems like this was from her LinkedIn, cannot source otherwise.
  • First sentence could use a rewrite or a split in two.
  • Though her interest in computer vision started during her tenure at Apple, the cited Wired source places the origin of this interest in her classes at Stanford. Unless another source interprets it differently, this content should probably be moved to Early life and education. If kept here, the bit about signal processing algorithms should be moved from the middle of it, as the current language makes it seem like "she did not consider the potential use for surveillance" is referring to signal processing, as opposed to computer vision.
  • The second paragraph's first sentence could use a rewrite or a split in two.
  • The WaPo source supports that Gebru spoke with Scarlett but "consulted with" is a stretch. Added another source.
  • Please cite the Verge source right at the end of the sentence with the quotes. Done.

Stopping for now. Will resume at §2013–2017. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• 2013–2017
  • Unclear who "She" is in sentence 2.
  • Early first paragraph is a bit choppy.
  • I'm fairly sure Selfpreneur is not a reliable source. Can it be replaced? It's used here and in Early life.
  • Is coverage by Newsweek mentioned in The Economist? That's the only one of the three cited sources I can't access, and the other two don't mention Newsweek. My preferred solution (mentioned below as an optional comment) is to remove or rework this sentence entirely. Next best is dropping the Newsweek mention (no consensus on reliability), followed by adding a source that verifies it.
  • Please name "the field"
  • "When she attended again the following year, she ...": all following commas in this sentence should be removed
  • "Summer of 2017" is unclear per MOS:SEASON but the sources aren't more specific. How about "after receiving her doctorate in 2017"?
  • Does the FAT conference proceeding source actually verify the interview question quote and response? I found a version of it through WP:TWL but it doesn't include the quote
  • Some organizational issues are becoming increasingly clear by this point. Content that is seemingly arbitrarily split between this section and §Early life: her work with Fei-Fei Li, her sexual harassment experience at NIPS, and her concern about racism in AI. There are many ways you could fix this; my first thought is to move all the substantive stuff into this section and give it a name like "Work at Stanford and Microsoft (2013–2017)".

Stopping here for now. I also added one new comment to the Early life section above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Google
  • Unclear who "She" is in sentence 2.
  • "at present" is unclear.
• Exit from Google
  • "mail" → "letter" or "email"?
  • In general, this section has too many commas.
  • Have Domingos and Lissack responded to the allegations?
  • Who are "civil society supporters"?
  • "and demanded Kacholia" this is presumably still part of her old team's demands but it's unclear
  • "and initiated" → "and he initiated"
  • "approach for handling how certain employees leave the company": most readers will assume this is quoting Google; it should either be summarized or attributed in the text to CNN Business
  • "but still did not clarify whether or not Gebru's leaving Google was voluntary" not explicitly supported by the source
  • "diversity, equity, and inclusion goals would be reported to Alphabet's board of directors quarterly": goals reported, or progress on them?
  • "held accountable for it": "it" is unclear (her termination, presumably)
  • "dismissive over" → "dismissive of"
• Post-Google
  • The section title and organizational purpose could be better/clearer. What distinguishes this content from the post-exit content in the section above?
  • First sentence needs a reorganization or rewrite
  • "to analyze its" → "to analyze Google's"
  • Business Insider is not a particularly reliable source. Any alternatives?
  • Was the Senators' letter "less formal" than the Cummings Foundation proposal?
  • "The probe comes after Gebru, and other BIPOC employees, reported that when they brought up their experiences with racism and sexism to Human Resources, they were advised to take medical leave and therapy through the company's Employee Assistance Program (EAP)." As the cited source for this doesn't mention the probe, this comes off a bit WP:SYNTHy. This content and the sentences that follow would do well in §Exit from Google.
• 2021–present
  • "launch an independent research institute modeled on her work on Google's Ethical AI team and her experience in Black in AI" looks like a Gebru quote but isn't

That's it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Non-GA notes (optional)

• Overall
  • I made a MOS:RACECAPS fix that you might like to double check
  • Please review for MOS:LQ punctuation fixes
  • Please review for MOS:N'T fixes
  • Please review for MOS:ENGVAR and tag with one of the "Use X English" templates (seems like American English is the most established right now)
  • Please review for MOS:DOC fixes
  • Journal articles should be in quotes not italics
  • Infobox image alt text could be more descriptive. Later image needs alt text.
• Lead
  • I think "Computer science" can be in sentence case
• Early life
  • Please add ref details to the widsconference.org citation
  • "Doctorate" is fine for the article text but the link should go to Doctor of Philosophy
  • Author parameters should be removed from the Tadias Magazine source
  • This use of "scathed" comes off as poetic or archaic

Stopping for now. Need to review §Apple for minor stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Apple
  • I think the tense works out such that the "[d]" is not needed in her "spotlight" quote
• 2013–2017
  • "neighbourhood" → "neighborhood" (see note above about ENGVAR)
  • If Fei-Fei Li is linked in Early life (see note above), please remove the link here
  • I prefer not to include content like "extensively covered in the media". If the sources have something novel and important to say, we should summarize that. If there's a reliable source commenting specifically on the widespread nature of the coverage, I'd cite that specifically.
  • "Black in AI" doesn't need italics but should be linked

Stopping here for now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Google
  • The quote in paragraph 2 should be summarized in wiki-voice.
• Exit from Google
  • Unlink Vice President
• Post-Google
  • Instead of Person of color, I'd link BIPOC, which leads via a redirect to the most helpful section
  • DFEH is introduced as an acronym but never used again
• Awards
  • The Nature source's entry on Gebru has an author you should add to the ref

That's it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

deported to eritrea?

that section is super-confusing!! so her parents were from the REGION of eritrea but living elsewhere (the capital) in ethiopia, and then when eritrea tried to break away, ethiopia itself EXILED THEM back to that region? is that what is intended?

saying they were "deported" when eritrea was still part of ethiopia makes no sense, nor does the line that they were COMPELLED TO FIGHT once in eritrea. fight for who? if they were dispatched to eritrea for the sole purpose of fighting FOR ETHIOPIA, then "deported" makes even less sense. if, otoh, the guerillas/freedom fighters of eritrea forced them to join up on THEIR side, why then would ethiopia send them there in the first place?! the way it reads now it's like ethiopia commanded them to fight...against itself!! 2601:19C:527F:A680:79AF:BDA5:FC0F:89AD (talk) 07:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• By around 1999, Ethiopia and Eritrea were already separate countries. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  OIC. i mistakenly assumed "ethiopian-eritrean war" meant eritrea's war of independence! my bad.

  however, we are still left with "deported and compelled to serve". i guess my SECOND choice is the correct interpretation here -- once in eritrea, the ERITREAN SIDE compelled them to serve?

  were they eritrean nationals the latter years they were in ethiopia, then? i mean, for the 7-8 years since independence, was "eritrean national here on a visa" a thing, or was ethiopian citizenship grandfathered in for people remaining in the country? 2601:19C:527F:A680:8972:5B78:A79A:CA4C (talk) 00:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  I think your second interpretation is correct, but I'm not sure. I don't have an answer for your follow-up questions. I do think the article language could be more clear, and that an additional sentence or so of explanation would be due (since it's a factor in her move out of the region and asylum in the US). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"online harassment campaign" claim is not objective

The statement "The controversy led to an online harassment campaign against Gebru and her supporters" is misleading. After reading the linked source it isn't clear that there is a noteworthy and object campaign against Gebru. Seems like an online feud and not something that is worthy on inclusion. 2601:602:8801:1680:B9AC:7FFA:9468:2739 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@2601:602:8801:1680:B9AC:7FFA:9468:2739: I believe I've addressed this. It is noteworthy, and I do not believe it is misleading anymore. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)