Talk:Algorithmic bias/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 11:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction and limitations

Before starting this review, I'd like to state that I have little knowledge on the subject, apart from a few news reports. I do think it is a very essential subject, and will be more and more so in the near future. You will have to bear with me, because I am a newbie on this topic, but then again, for GA, you cannot be too technical, so this may turn out just well.

Overview

I have assessed the article at B now.

1. Prose:

No copyright violations.
The article reads well. You have made great attempts to get things explained to "dummies". Nevertheless, there are some parts left that are unclear. See detailed review below.

2. MOS:

Remove citations in the lead which are already in the body of the article per Lead section policy, unless there are some very controversial statements in there.
Though not required by any criteria, you might consider using shortened footnotes using the {{sfn}} template, which looks cleaner than the {{rp}} system you have used now.

3. References layout: There are some dead or inaccessible links in the article, which you might want to replace with other online links or archived links. Don't remove dead links though.

4. Reliable sources:

shirky.com, Bitch Magazine and Culture Digitally read more like blogs or essays than news coverage, and you should cite them as primary sources, using inline attribution (According to Bitch Magazine ...) and not the voice of Wikipedia. If possible, try to corroborate information from sources with data from independent, secondary, reliable sources, which will also help to show evidence of notability and relevance for the opinions quoted. You have already done this correctly with the Shirky website.
The rest of the sources are reliable enough.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: I believe this topic has been covered in popular culture such as here. If you can find reliable sources on this, you should add it, as it indicates how the topic is relevant for the public.

7. Focus: Yes.

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Relevant and tagged. Nicely done.

Detailed review per section

I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries.

Lead

... (such as a website or app) ... Isn't application better for written language?
... even within a single use-case ...and ... even between users of the same service ... seem to contradict.

Methods

... uncertainty bias ... Isn't there somewhere this can wikilink to?
... algorithms may be flawed in ways that reveal personal information ... Is this also part of the definition of algorithmic bias? It doesn't sound like bias to me; more like sloppiness. Am I missing something here?

Early critiques

This section is very difficult to read, and needs to be rewritten almost completely:

... human-derived operations ...: you mean procedures and working methods as in real life?
... are therefore understood to "embody law". What does this mean?
... computer programs changing perceptions of machines from transferring power to transferring information How do computer programs change the perception of machines? Or do you mean people's perceptions of machines? Transferring power or information to people?
... if users interpret data in intuitive ways that cannot be formally communicated to, or from, a machine. For example?
Weizenbaum stated that all data fed to a machine must reflect "human decisionmaking processes" which have been translated into rules for the computer to follow. So, data must reflect processes, to translate into rules... So the rules are part of the data?
... and as a result, computer simulations can be built ... As a result of imagining that world incompletely?
... the results of such decisions ... Whose decisions?
... why the decision was made ... You mean, why the tourist made the decision?
In what way are the coin tosses "correct"?

Contemporary critiques

... natural results of the program's output ... How can the code of a program be the result of a program?
These biases can create new patterns of behavior ..., Biases may also impact how society shapes itself ... For example?
... weighed more heavily ... You mean, people give more authority to decisions by algorithms? Or, perceive such decisions to be more authoritative?
... language frames ... I've wikilinked this now. Is my interpretation correct?
Sociologist Scott Lash has critiqued algorithms ... Expand or wikilink important terms.

Pre-existing

Such ideas may reflect ... You mean the bias may reflect, right? You would not expect an institutional bias to reflect a personal bias. Ideas sounds like you are referring to the ideologies rather than the bias.
In a critical view ... Whose critical view?

The example helps to explain the main points.

May 2018

I will continue this detailed review once I get a response from you.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Farang Rak Tham! I will try to respond this weekend. Do feel free to continue with your assessment if you have more to say - I tend to prefer investing enormous chunks of time into tackling these problems rather than tackling them piecemeal, but of course how you review is up to you. Thank you for a thoughtful and constructive set of recommendations! -Owlsmcgee (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

The prose in some sections still needs a lot of copy-editing work. Try using more active voice, and less passive voice. This will help.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Putting review on hold, as seven days have passed. You have indicated you still wish to pursue this, so I will give you another seven days. If you need even more time, you should specify a deadline yourself. The article is a very relevant subject worthy of the reader's attention, so it would certainly not be a waste of time to do some copy-editing on it.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Farang Rak Tham - I did intend to tackle it on the weekend, however, some things had come up. I will take some time with the review this week, but could you extend the timeline to June 18 so I have time to address them all in a thorough manner? I know I am a bit of a lapsed editor but it's important for me to get this article to GA status as I have created it almost entirely myself from scratch, and am very invested in this outcome! I assure you I will not abandon your work and recommendations. Thanks! -Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA progress

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed