Jump to content

Talk:Algorithmic bias/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Algorithmic bias
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Owlsmcgee (talk | contribs) at 21:48, 14 June 2018 (clarifying changes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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?
    • You're correct, I was unclear. The issue is the stereotyping in marketing, shadow profiling, and other problems. Certainly data exposure is a problem, but that isn't algorithmic bias. I've fixed it to reflect the bias-associated problem rather than privacy ones. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    • I mean the models that humans created to solve math problems, basically - literally the order of operations. I've tried to make it a little clearer by explaining programs as a series of steps, etc. Let me know if it reads better now. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... are therefore understood to "embody law". What does this mean?
    • I've tried to make it clear. They embody law in that they take a series of steps and repeat them across all inputs, becoming a "law" for how the program executes and never changing how it executes, regardless of what data is inserted into it. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... 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?
    • I think this is clear without an example, and because Weinstein was theorizing at the time, it would be WP:OR to include a contemporary example if he didn't include them himself. I hope the examples given later in the article illustrate these concepts enough for the reader. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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"?

Impressive rewrite. Excellent.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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?
    • I love examples, but again, a lot of the critiques are kind of "theorizing" and I think it might be WP:OR to say "here's an example of this" if nobody has specifically pointed to it as an example. If I find a third-party making that link, I would record it here, but it's not appropriate to draw that connection on my own until a reliable source says I should. :) -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, but please specify ... other elements of society ... or ... how society shapes .... WP:NOTOR may be helpful in this process. If you can't specify it, you need to find more sources. If all your secondary sources are very technical and niche-specific, try using tertiary sources like study books or encyclopedias instead. Or use popular sources written by scholars in the field--the "lay versions" of scholarly articles can often be found in news papers and popular magazines. Some of these are useful, especially when written by experts in the field. If you are unsure about the level of editorial oversight, just mention the source inline and you should be okay. Especially if those sources are written by scholars.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and summarized the research from the paper cited, hopefully this serves as an example that clarifies the meaning. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.
    • Yes, thanks. I've adjusted the language. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first sentence is much clearer. But I am still uncertain what this means: ... who also carry sets social, institutional, and cultural assumptions ...

* In a critical view ... Whose critical view?

The example helps to explain the main points.

  • By attempting to appropriately articulate this logic into an algorithmic process, the BNAP inscribed the logic of the British Nationality Act into its algorithm. This sentence seems to stay the same thing twice. Am I right?
    • Not quite. The distinction is there: they were trying to reproduce the logic of immigration law into the algorithm, and in doing so, inscribed the BN act into the software. Is that clearer? -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Detection

I have moved this section to the talk page per MOS:EMBED.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Technical

  • Flaws in random number generation can also introduce bias into results. How?
  • ... what takes place beyond the camera's field of vision. Raises questions. What could be there then?

Emergent bias

  • drug breakthrough is unusual English, unless you are referring to Breakthrough therapy. Development of a new drug?
  • ... clear outlines of authorship or personal responsibility ... ... for that exclusion process?
  • ... a "lead member's" ... How is it determined who is the lead?
  • ... it removed distant locations from their partner's preferences ... Consider cutting this out to simplify.
  • ... high-rated schools ... You mean the schools the lead member preferred? High-rated could refer to many kinds of ratings.

Correlations

  • ... compared to each other in practice. Can in practice be removed?
  • ... By "discrimination" against ... Confusing and redundant. I would just write By responding to or By selecting
  • ... correlations can be inferred for reasons beyond the algorithm's ability to understand them. "The algorithm draws conclusions from correlations, without being able to understand those correlations?"
  • ... hospitals typically give ... "hospitals without such a triage program"?

Unanticipated uses

  • ... machines may demand ... machines may expect?
  • Also, certain metaphors ... For example, the British National Act Program ... How is this a metaphor?
  • How is this example of British citizenship an unanticipated audience?
  • Does an ATM have algorithms?

Feedback loops

  • The simulation showed that public reports of crime could rise based on the sight of increased police activity, and could be interpreted by the software in modeling predictions of crime, and to encourage a further increase in police presence within the same neighborhoods. Do you mean: "The simulation discovered a correlation between increased reports of crime and increased reports of police activity"? If that is what you mean, why did the simulation encourage more police in black neighborhoods?

Examples

I recommend integrating the examples into the sections about the different kinds of bias. It will help to improve understanding those sections, and will make the narrative of the body more smooth and less repetitive.

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]
Okay. Hard work!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:29, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is still the copy editing of the text to go through and correct, I'll get to it soon, but wanted to show a good faith effort to get some work done on this article in response to your excellent review. Thank you! -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article is very intensive in terms of copy-editing. But I will continue with it because it is very interesting material.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:22, 8 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
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Algorithmic_bias/GA1&oldid=845898343"