Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:56, 5 May 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Creationism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Creationism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Creationism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CreationismWikipedia:WikiProject CreationismTemplate:WikiProject CreationismCreationism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.10.10 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.10.17 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Moulton (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. 18.85.44.145 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Archived discussion

Getting a consensus

Progress... User_talk:Hrafn42#Forget_I_said_anything

Okay. Given it is a connection highlighted by the NYT article, it seems a comment pointing out that Picard is not a biologist, or that here field does not directly relate to evo-bio will not constitute OR.

However, it is still perceivably WP:SYNTH (IMHO, a textbook case) to relate this back to the failed appeal-to-authority value of A Scientific Dissent. Is consensus for or against the inclusion of this?

Previous text, which may or may not reflect final content:

attempts to base its claim to truth on the credentials of its signatories, a logical fallacy known as an 'appeal to authority.' Where the 'authority' in question is venturing an opinion outside their field of expertise (as is the case with Picard), it is known as an 'appeal to false authority.' °context

_{I will be deleting any off-topic banter or trolling by any party, arguments have been presented numerous times by all parties involved, I don't think it really serves any purpose to continue.}

For

1. Hrafn42 04:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Against

1. ZayZayEM 01:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
2. dave souza, talk 15:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Looking at the source carefully, it seems to me that a sentence added after the first sentence in the existing paragraph could summarise the statement in a neutral way:

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that Picard was one of a small number of nationally prominent researchers, out of five hundred scientists and engineers, whose names appeared on the Discovery Institute's controversial petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism". According to the Discovery Institute 254 of the signers held degrees in the biological sciences or biochemistry, leaving more than 350 nonbiologists including Dr. Picard. The two-sentence statement has been widely used by its sponsor, the Discovery Institute, and some of their supporters in a national campaign to discredit evolution and to promote the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.

I did try "The Times noted that more than 350 of the signers, including Dr. Picard, were nonbiologists.", but that seemed to be going a bit beyond the source. ... dave souza, talk 08:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• That seems fine. Can you please comment on the inclusion of the allusion to the appeal to authority fallacy, or are you being diplomatically neutral today?--ZayZayEM 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think you need to point out "The Times noted..." because it's not something only The Times would have seen. Any reporting body looking for it (which was most) would have noticed that 350 weren't actually biologists. Sources only need to be cited when something controversial comes up. We are citing The Times at the start, because we are establishing her signing as a encyclopedically significant fact.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On June 29, 2006, Picard proposed this version...

Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Dissent From Darwin Petition (see page 6 of the petition for her signature). This petition has received criticism since although all of the signers hold doctorates in science and engineering disciplines, only 154 of the 514 signers have biological science backgrounds.

On February 4, 2007, Picard proposed this version...

Controversial Petition Signer
Recently, The New York Times reported that Dr. Picard signed the Discovery Institute's Petition, "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" (see page 6 of the petition for her signature, which names the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as her affiliation).

--Moulton 10:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there is no problem with drawing the conclusions that Chang did in the NYT, but in a brief abbreviated fashion. I have no problem with the blog as a reference, as long as we have a couple of other more RS sources if there are problems. I think she is not particularly notable, although she obviously gained notability from appearing in Chang's article.--Filll 01:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please see WP:PROF I think she meets #3. And her involvement with DI removes caveat 1. (If Moulton is to be trusted she meets #5)--ZayZayEM 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Given that we appear to be at an impasse on gaining a consensus on disputed content in this article, and given that the non-disputed content is quite minimal, I would like to nominate that this article be merged into Affective computing. I make this nomination on the basis of WP:MERGE and specifically these two "good reasons":

2. Overlap - There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept in the universe. For example, "Flammable" and "Non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on Flammability.
3. Text - If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For instance, parents or children of a celebrity that are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity, and can be merged there.

Picard is notable for little beyond the field of Affective Computing, so overlap should be obvious. Additionally, there seems little likelihood of much expansion of this article (none at all as long as it remains protected, but much debate for little or no gain even if it is unprotected again). There is quite frankly little further to be said about Picard that could not be better said on the article on Affective Computing.

This proposal will require getting the template {{mergeto|Affective computing|Talk:Affective computing#Merger proposal|{{subst:DATE}}}} inserted into this (protected) article. Unless anybody wishes to object to me making this proposal (as opposed to objecting to the merger itself), I will seek a {{editprotected}} to get it inserted (alternatively, if an admin wanders in & decides that this proposal is a reasonable one to make, they might insert the template without me having to go through channels). Once we get the template onto this article, I'll place the complementary template on Affective computing . Hrafn42 14:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Picard is notable for more than affective computing. Namely for being a signatory of Dissent. This information would have no relation to the affective computing page. That this article is not a stub (but still small) shows that two articles are favourable.--ZayZayEM 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:MERGE and point out where it lists notability as an impediment to merger, or where it makes any mention at all on whether or not an article is a stub. Hrafn42 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the disputed paragraph should be left out unless there's a consensus on the talk page to reintroduce it. My feeling is that she's just about notable enough for an article, but it's not a strong opinion. To allow discussions to progress I've unprotected the page, If edit warring ensues it will be reprotected. .. dave souza, talk 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My main point here there is material that is encyclopedically relevant to Picard that is not relevant to affective computing.--ZayZayEM 01:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Two of your arguments here are based on #1 "Picard is notable for little beyond the field of Affective Computing", so my counterclaim that this is false still stands and #2 "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded", so my counterclaim that neither article is a stub (Rosalind Picard is at least start-class IMO) stands too. This is a really weird merge proposal IMHO.--ZayZayEM 01:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I also think she is barely notable. I would favor summarizing the New York Times article that mentions her, in the least offensive manner possible, to avoid upsetting anyone. However, we should still include the material that lead to her being mentioned in that Chang article. Otherwise, why did Chang single her out? If she was an MIT biologist, I suspect Chang might have mentioned her still, but maybe in a very different context. The context in which she was mentioned is important, and merits inclusion. By us excluding this information, or trying to spin it in another way, we are engaging in OR. However, if we just use the same context Chang did, we are not violating WP:OR.--Filll 16:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not debating whether she is notable. I am debating whether there is significant non-overlapping notability beyond that of Affective Computing. If, as you appear to be conceding, she is "barely notable" to start with, and if there is, as I contend, a heavy overlap between her notability and that of Affective Computing, then the non-overlapping notability of Picard would be negligible, and not worthy of a separate article. Hrafn42 05:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I support a merge/redirect, but for a different reason: this is not a proper biography by a long shot. But note that mentioning the ID poll will probably not satisfy Due Weight concerns in the Affective Computing article.

Nevertheless, it may be possible to find sufficient published information on Picard to expand this into a true bio; those in favor of keeping a separate biography may want to spend some time digging it up. Topics e.g. early life, pop. science publications/(media) appearances/talks given on Affective Computing, her religious beliefs. Avb 13:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ZayZayEM's recent accusation of WP:DISRUPT

• It was ZayZayEM's insertion that introduced the figure of 254 into the article . It was perfectly legitimate to remove this obviously contradictory sentence until the specific error could be identified & corrected.
• Given ZayZayEM's very zealous enforcement of WP:NOR on previous matters, it is unreasonable of him to object to my seeking a similar enforcement on his edits, specifically his insertion of the unsupported adjective "emerging".
  • On ZayZayEM's argument for reinsertion, even if <20y.o. = "emerging" weren't WP:SYNTH, most fields in Computer Science are of similar youth (it is after all a very young field), so this is non-notable. Hrafn42 06:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• The List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" does not show "five hundred scientists and engineers", it only shows the 23 of them that somebody has gotten around to entering. As such this link is both confusing and misleading.

Hrafn42 06:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the word "emerging" does not belong here. It sounds ridiculous when applied to a subfield of computer science. This is even more true when used to describe something in computer technology.

The statements ZayZayEM has wanted to include about the petition and the numbers are either wrong, misleading, or confused.--Filll 12:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• I fixed the incorrect figure to 154. Sorry I took dave's maths at face value. 5am. will expand tomorrow. reverted to earlier Hrafn version in meanwhile--ZayZayEM 19:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the error in mental maths – I can proudly claim to have failed my O-level arithmetic. Oops. Have now corrected the total number of signatories it from 500 to 514, which makes the "over 350 nonbiologists" work if needed. Sorry and all, .. dave souza, talk 22:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, some of those are biochemists, which are not the same as biologists. Certainly they are not experts in evolution. They just need classes in organic chemistry, and not biology or genetics etc.--Filll 23:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not caring too much anymore. I inserted the material about Picard being a non-biologist because consensus appeared to favour inclusion, and a source did actually point it out (if only someone had actually used this argument at the start). I am not accusing Hrafn of WP:DISRUPT, though it does seem that it seems certain parties seem to be having a "my way or the highway/all or nothing" attitude towards Picard's article. I'm quite happy to leave "emerging" out of the article if people feel it is overstepping the mark (noone actually commented as to why it was unreasonable to suggest). List of signatories to "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" is a relevant link, even if it doesn't actually list all 500 signatories (yet), perhaps it could be worded differently.--ZayZayEM 08:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Visitor from MIT IP

I've reverted an edit by IP# 18.85.44.145, location: United States , owner: MIT

Apart from the fact that I feel such a change requires a consensus first, if only for WP:BLP reasons, this could be a sock or meat puppet trying to continue disrupting this article. Avb 14:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Not only is it MIT, it's MIT Media Lab -- dhcp-44-145.media.mit.edu, so most likely Picard or an associate. Hrafn42_Stalk 14:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering the nature of the edit, I'd be very curious to know whether it was picard. ornis (t) 15:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably someone trying to generate more raw material for more juvenile stories about moulton's Misplaced Pages experience. Why don't these people understand this reflects badly on them in real life? Anyway, one more edit of this kind and we'd better request a moulton sock/meat puppet block. Avb 15:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, this edit in the opposite direction of the Moulton edits and the purported Picard anon edits. So it might be just someone trying to create controversy, or more material for Moulton and his blogs and/or experiments with the "journalism" culture and standards of WP, or it might be an associate of Picard and Moulton's who really secretly feels that Moulton and Picard are wrong, and resents their views and activities. It is too coincidental.--Filll 15:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Both the alleged Picard edits were 18.85.10.xx numbers and, as Filll says, this new edit changes the heading to "Anti-evolution petition" which Steve and Moulton had been fighting against. .. dave souza, talk 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit created a situation that, if handled incorrectly, would reflect badly on Misplaced Pages. The assumption that the change might stick without a consensus seems based on an incorrect understanding of (and plain disbelief in) WP style consensus - both hallmarks of moulton's type of editing. By the way, has Picard herself ever contacted editors, or the Foundation directly? It beats anonymous IP editing and proxy editing by a friend who does not want to go with the flow and attacks the system. Avb 17:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Picard contacted me directly with a personal email, and promised to send me more information once she had investigated the situation further. I have not heard back from her, and it is more than 2 weeks after she had promised to get back to me.

It easily could be Moulton testing our NPOV principles and WP mechanisms, since he is writing articles about this, and would love to be able to hang us out to dry if we do not handle this situation "fairly".--Filll 18:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

True. Well, we'll simply go on editing as usual. If Picard ever follows up on that promise, we may be able to do something for her, or once again explain why we can't. Avb 18:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-biologist

NYT does make a point of her being a non-biologist:

The Discovery Institute says 128 signers hold degrees in the biological sciences and 26 in biochemistry. That leaves more than 350 nonbiologists, including Dr. Tour, Dr. Picard and Dr. Skell.

350> vs 128 is majority, so I don't think it is too bad to say that Picard is one amongst the majority of nonbiologists who signed the petition.--ZayZayEM 00:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

It seems to me that the section, Rosalind Picard#"A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", is a violation of the undue weight policy. It is clearly only a minor point, deserving one sentence maximum, not a section heading. As far as I can tell, there is no further information relevant to her other than that she signed it.

I'm removing all but the first sentence, and the rest of the information can be covered over at A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism. Sχeptomaniac 23:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Her status as a non-biologist is also relevant. The NYT makes a note of the fact. I don't see a problem with trimming down a detailed explanation of what ASDFD was/is. I do think that it should still remain a seperate sectionm, as it is not related to her Affective Computing work.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think her status as a non-biologist is relevant to the Dissent from Darwinism article more so than here. It's really more relevant what she is in this article.

As far as separating it from her other work, if we actually had sections for her other work, it would make more sense to do so. However, the article body only contains one section, Rosalind Picard#Biography, so creating a separate section for the Dissent from Darwinism petition sets it apart as if it were a particularly defining event in her life, which I think it's clearly not. Sχeptomaniac 01:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a big part of her notability. It should stay, maybe abbreviated, but it should stay. Without it, she is really just a professor who put smiling faces on computers. So what?--Filll (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a big part of her notability. It's not much of a big anything. She is not Gonzalez. Picard is quite obviously primarily an expert on affective computing, and that is what she is notable for. Even NYT acknowledges she maintained some notability before signing the document, otherwise it would not have listed her as a "nationally prominent scientist".--ZayZayEM (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite any major WP:RSs other than the NYT piece that makes mention of her? If not then that piece, and its subject, remains the only substantive evidence of her notability. What the NYT thinks is not relevant to WP:NOTE. If you want an article "primarily on affective computing", then you are welcome to merge this article into the one on the subject (the topic really isn't notable enough to deserve two articles), as I earlier suggested. An article on Picard herself cannot help but give prominent mention of the one thing that she's done that has gotten her mentioned in the mainstream press. Hrafn_Stalk 07:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say I wanted an article on anything. I just said Picard's notability is primarily from such work. I really don't see how anyone can dispute that. It's why she was mentioned in the NYT article, she was already "a nationally prominent scientist". Let's look at the internet: "They walk among us", an article on Future technology has a paragraph on Picard's work; First Monday has an interview with Picard that outlines affective computing and Affective Computing (and in which she asserts her founding of the field, or at least naming); Chris Willmott also has review of Affective Computing

tries to meet the criticisms of a sceptical audience by emphasising practical benefits and avoiding science-fiction rhetoric

Another review , Further "future/robot" news articles at The Telegraph, The Independent, and The Boston Globe.

Google testing alone brings up one resource that refers to the petition, her wikipedia article... notable indeed.--ZayZayEM (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good finds. I think Picard passes notability requirements on her own, but if the petition truly were the most significant thing she has done, then the article should be put up for deletion. She was one of several hundred signers, so if she's not notable on her own, she's not worth mentioning at all.

I'll also add that I have not been saying that the information should go, only that the version as it stood constitutes undue weight. Her contribution to ID has been small, both in the context of her life as well as in the context of the ID movement. Unless there's more information to add about her and the ID movement, one sentence is plenty. Sχeptomaniac 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I think at the very least we should summarize what is in the NYT article. I do not believe this can adequately be covered in one sentence.--Filll (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not completely convinced that the summary is necessary, as the links to the Discovery Institute and Dissent from Darwinism articles offer quick access to further explanation, but that's a reasonable point to consider. Sχeptomaniac 00:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur 100% with Filll here - she's notable mostly for being a semi-respectable academic who signed a petition propagated by and fueling the conspiracy theories of cranks. Raul654 (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class biography articles
• Biography articles needing attention
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Start-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• Creationism articles needing attention
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors