Talk:TESCREAL

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 November 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Artificial intelligence 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.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles

Computing Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Futures studies Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies 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.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Restoring this Page[edit]

This term has quickly common into common usage in a wide range of essays, news coverage and other discussion of AI and the culture of Silicon Valley and the tech industry in the US. I'm concerned that its deletion/ merge with the term's originator may have been a hasty decision spurred on by some editors with a bias against outside criticism of TESCREAL ideologies. As an editor who usually focuses on topics in the arts, I'd like to see if editors with less baggage related to the charged topics at hand might take a stab at developing a page for this subject that would quite easily qualify based on notability and other benchmarks. Mbroderick271 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take a crack at improving this article, eventually, after exams are done.

I've mostly just been doing rando edits while exams are on for me haha.

I might go thru the WP:REFUND process to try my hand at this, when I have the time. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Timnit Gebru and Émile P. Torres created the acronym TESCREAL to describe a group of ideologies popular among people focused on existential risk from artificial general intelligence?

Source: [1], [2]

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Kelvite sounding machine

Moved to mainspace by Bluethricecreamman (talk), GorillaWarfare (talk), and JoaquimCebuano (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 21 past nominations.

GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

~~The readable prose size is 1,119 words which is well short of the required 1,500 words. Notifying nominator.~~
@PearlyGigs: DYK requires articles be greater than 1,500 characters in length, which this article exceeds (7,845). GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Characters? Oh, dear! My apologies, GorillaWarfare, and I'll continue. First one of these I've done. PearlyGigs (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was a draft until today so new enough and, as I now realise, also long enough. I can't see any problems in the article around copyvio, POV or OR. Sourcing looks good overall and the hook citations appear to be sound and reliable. The hook is certainly interesting because it caught my eye immediately when I was checking my own nomination. QPQ has been done. I think this is fine and it should be promoted. PearlyGigs (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose this nomination: An article on this subject was deleted 7 months ago because of weak sourcing. There haven't been any new sources added other than a paper by the two proponents of this theory and lots of other really weak sources. Wikipedia's job isn't to promote anti-vaxx conspiracy theories or other conspiracy theories, of which in my and other people's opinions, this is one. The only people claiming that ANYONE adheres to these multiple philosophies is Torres and Gebru. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original admin who closed AfD undeleted it after i proposed appropriate changes. the AfD never came to consensus of conspiracy theory (just u), and deleted it due to lack of WP:N. if u want to delete this again, use AfD again or bug the original admin.Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that that would be a conversation for AfD, not DYK. The article is neutral and adequately sourced. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The LEAD is well written and neutral, thanks for that.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware when I did the DYK review that the article is about ideologies, but I don't consider the article to be promoting those ideologies because it is neutral. The subject, in my opinion, is notable. I can't say I'm knowledgeable about TESCREAL but the article does appear to be adequately sourced. I've been reading it again and I still think the hook should be promoted. But, as I say, I am not an SME in this area so I will happily step aside if an SME is needed. Incidentally, the lead is the primary location of the hook material and its two sources. Thanks. PearlyGigs (talk) 09:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

wp:blp applies to poorly sourced material[edit]

please use discretion and do not delete large portions of an article without cause Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 stop editwarring on a newly recreated article and discuss on talk page or on the WP:BLPN

Most of the sourcing on this article comes from well publicized news sources, and most of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE

Some are self-confessed TESCREALists and happily declare themselves to be. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There were some sentences that were sourced only to Torres, which I agree need secondary sourcing. However I do agree that the sourcing is acceptable for the others. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just seeing this is at BLPN now. Dropping the link for anyone else who may have missed it: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#TESCREAL#Alleged TESCREALists GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel word section[edit]

"Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source."

@Avatar317 please self-revert. Every claim has multiple sources. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple incredibly low-quality sources. See the previous Talk discussions, The Washington Spectator is a very low quality source, and a lot is sourced to it. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only seeing one mention of the Washington Spectator at RSN: a 2015 discussion where an editor referred to it as "obviously reliable".

I addressed several instances of vague {{who?}} wording earlier ([3], [4]), but when summarizing opinions presented in multiple sources you tend to end up with a laundry list of names that a reader can go to the references section to find. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OPINION applies according to WP:RSP. It can be used with attribution and without stating it as a fact, which we do.

Also, it is only used for Ray Kurzweiller and Musk. Idk if we need Kurzweiller if only a single source suggests he is TESCREALIST, as per what Avatar says.

But Musk has 5 others sources in addition to Washington Spectator. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed Kurzweil, as he's mentioned frequently and uncontroversially in the context of "TES", but not so much in the context of "CREAL". One could probably WP:SYNTH together various sources describing him as someone who has been influential to the CREAL world, but I think we should wait for secondary sources to focus on him in the TESCREAL context before listing him here. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 03:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be healthier for the article to let other people engage with it. I made the first version and struggled for it, and you made several intervention then. Now other people took an interested, which i think is the best way to produce a less one-sided article. JoaquimCebuano (talk) 20:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]