TESCREAL was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 15 November 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Timnit Gebru. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Timnit Gebru article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
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 sourcedmust 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora 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.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human–Computer Interaction, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human–Computer InteractionWikipedia:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionTemplate:WikiProject Human–Computer InteractionHuman–Computer Interaction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
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 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article was created or improved during the #1day1woman initiative hosted by the Women in Red project in 2019. 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
I started a deletion discussion for Stochastic parrot, which is an article originally created as an article about Gebru's paper: "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?" and then renamed to the term "Stochastic parrot" with sources added to support that term. I'm posting this notice here so that maybe we can have wider participation in the deletion discussion. ---Avatar317(talk)22:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my recent edit was reverted. I am concerned that the current version of the lede is not written from a neutral point of view. I am still a bit new to Wikipedia, so not sure what the correct etiquette is here; I have added this to the talk page instead of editing the same section to (hopefully) avoid any edit wars.
The reversion claimed that my edit was not sourced – I think this is not true, given that I added a source (from the Financial Times, which is generally considered reputable – as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources) and the existing sources corroborate the new paragraph? The old "sourced" lede also lacked citations? I would be super grateful if someone could explain this to me :)
A few issues I have
The current lede is quite vague and non-descriptive which is not helpful to readers?
I think stating that "Gebru was the center of a public controversy" is not neutral because it implies the controversy was about her rather than her employment (or termination thereof) at Google. This could be better phrased as "In December 2020, Gebru's employment at Google was terminated".
I think it's appropriate to mention that the paper was about potential harms and safety issues of LLMs, because this is valuable context useful to the reader. The paper itself is also quite famous.
The article states that "she [Gebru] requested insight into the decision and warned that non-compliance would result in her negotiating her departure" which I think is a very aggressive way to phrase this. I rewrote this as "Gebru requested an explanation from Google, stating that she would resign if they did not meet a number of conditions" which I think communicates the same thing in a more neutral way?
Even if "higher management" shouldn't be "Google management" it should probably be "senior management"?
The current lead is a summary of the sources that were already in the article before you edited it. Please see WP:LEADCITE. As I stated in my edit summary, please see the NYT and NPR sources and the included quotes from those sources.
It seems that you are trying to push an NON-neutral POV with your edit; why did you remove "and said that the paper ignored recent research." from the lead? That important fact answers the WHY this situation came about, WHY Google wanted the paper withdrawn.
I don't think I am trying to push a non-neutral POV, in my reading (including of the NYTimes source) I thought this was something that Jeff Dean had later stated in his email.
Re termination – the lead says that "Google terminated her employment" as a statement of fact, so I accepted that. Legally I think it's also questionable given the well-established facts (Gebru stating she would intend to resign if Google didn't meet her conditions, Google claiming this constituted a resignation) to not call this a termination. If California employment law does allow an employee's stated intention to resign as a resignation, then this would be appropriate I think. Ambientcalculus (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to go make a subheading for TESCREAL as a logical split on Timnit's page.
I've known about the deleted article, and from what I can tell, there was no established consensus that it was a conspiracy theory (A single link to someone's substack (WP:SPS) seems much less useful than the peer-reviewed articles about TESCREAL). This is more like her research topic, and part of what she communicates.
I don't necessarily disagree with the deletion of the article at the time, the concept that Dr gebru and Torres are pioneering is just new enough there weren't much sources to cite. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
