Talk:Female gendering of AI technologies
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nnguyen15. Peer reviewers: MyliannaSandoval.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jputty, Etsegethopwood.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Removing the article?
editThis article is was indicated by Wikipedia as having every possible sort of issue related to a Wikipedia article. A lot of unsourced “information” (Personal opinions), it’s written in a erratic way, the article looks like a Facebook page random post. It’s absolutely biased, with clearly political agenda being supported entirely. The article should be rewritten completely, the matter is very important, and the article should reflect that. With sourced information, unbiased, and even if biased, it should show all sides of the political spectrum, and not only radical left segment of the Democratic Party (Which is, apparently, the only one represented here). Sorry about possible misspellings from this non native English speaker that talks to you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.83.29.72 (talk • contribs) 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- In its present form, the article seems to have been improved. It refers to undoubtedly reliable sources, like the UNESCO/EAQUALS study, which again cites 115 references and 11 pages of bibliography. As far as I can see, the article resumes part of that study in an unbiased way, and certainly presents important findings about serious gender bias in AI-related products that are used by millions. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Munfarid. "Unbiased" should not be taken to mean "present all sides as if they are equal propositions." Arguments made in bad faith, for example, should not be held in equal weight as an argument with a long history of scientific consensus. Ryanlemminglee (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Removing the multiple issues flags soon
editIf there are no objections based on facts and the current text of the article, I propose removing the multiple issues flags by August 2021. Obviously, there have not been any such arguments on this talk page since June 2020. Munfarid1 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree, article isn't perfect but is sufficient, any objections (especially from anyone who's been editing longer than I have?) Xenador77 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:10, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
- Without checking all of the text word-for-word, I suspect that the problem is that the article is almost entirely based on this. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Continuing UNESCO COI issues for a discussion of related issues. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)