Talk:Algorithmic bias/GA2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 16:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll be doing this. 16:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Overview

In some parts, I'll refer to the first review, and won't copy all of that here.

1. Prose: See detailed review below. No copyright violations.

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.

• Done! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

3. References layout: No problems.

4. Reliable sources: Yes. Responding to your explanation given in the previous nomination, it is advisable to attempt to access Noble's original 2012 thesis, but not required per GA criteria.

5. Original research: None found.

6. Broadness: will check this later per secondary sources. Whether popular culture should be included depends on whether this is sufficiently covered by RS.

7. Focus: As stated in the previous review, the example sections should be integrated in the other sections. The article's narrative is full of examples, so a separate section with examples is certainly redundant. I do think some of the examples are useful, but can they be integrated with the impact or types sections?

• Done! Sections have been integrated into the sections on forms of bias, and early examples into the early history. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

8. Neutral: Yes.

9. Stable: article is stable.

10-11. Pics: Relevant and tagged.

Detailed review per section

I'll do the lead at the end, though previous comments about the lead have all been addressed by nominator.

Voting behavior

• It isn't quite clear that the 20% and the 340,000 votes is the same group of people.

• Clarified --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender discrimination

• There are updates on Google's execution of the plans. They're mentioned briefly on Noble's blog.

• I've made it more explicit. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• I'll check about Target later. It's in Duhigg's 2013 book about habits, but i can't remember it well. Something about being less aggressive about showing their predictions. May not be relevant.

• If you can find it, great, but I agree it's not absolutely needed. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• It's here. Andrew Pole worked for Target. Up to you whether to include it in the article.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

• Do you mean the scores from 1920-1970 are shared to judges?

• No, I mean that for the 50 years between 1920 and 1970, this score included the nationality of the criminal's father. I've clarified. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Challenges

Challenge is an euphemism for problem. Reword per WP:WTW. It's fuzzy, but part of GA, I'm afraid.

• Changed the section to a more specific "obstacles to research" which is what it's about, thanks for the suggestion. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Rapid pace of change

• Can this be merged with subsection Complexity?

• Definitely a good idea. I've done so. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Lack of consensus about goals and criteria

• This section is not very clearly written.
  • the availability of loans from a bank ... Complex and difficult to read, please rephrase.
  • Please check the rest of the section as well.

• Though perhaps not ideal, I've just removed this section outright, as it didn't make much sense to me upon re-reading it. It seemed to be about why and how biased algorithms get deployed in the first place, but these are handled in other sections and in more coherent ways. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Europe

• Has the GDPR been implemented yet? I know there have been a number of privacy laws that have been implemented in Holland recently, though I am not sure whether this is based on European law.

  • It has been. I've removed "the "to be implemented" and made it past tense. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• What are heavy exceptions?

  • I didn't write this section, but it seems odd that we are talking about laws that "weren't used often due to heavy exceptions" prior to the GDPR -- seems this section should focus on what the current regulation says, not whether past policies were effective or widely used. I've removed that piece and I think it simplifies the passage significantly, while keeping its focus on the most relevant information for this article. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Please wikilink recital at the first mention.
• as such rights may fatigue individuals who are too overburdened to use them effectively. Please clarify.

• It just means that consumers don't have to complain. I've tried to simplify that language a bit. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

United States

• It also recommended ... Was anything done with these recommendations?

• Clarified in text that these were guidance for a strategy. Nothing was done on a regulatory scale, however, I've added a section describing the first US law on algorithms, which was a task force created in New York City. Relevant as the first of its kind. --Owlsmcgee (talk)

Third reading

Three more comments:

• could "Online Hate Speech" and "surveillance" become subsections in the section "racial discrimination"? Perhaps the header should be edited, e.g. racial and ethnic discrimination.

• Done. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• The section on regulation has not been summarized in the lead yet.

• Sparse content for the lead (really only the GDPR is lead-worthy) but I've included it, just stating the fact. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• I felt that the lead does not adequately explain yet why the subject is so alarming and important, and worthy of study. This should be addressed more, per MOS:INTRO.

• I disagree that this is neccesary... the article lead is not intended to convince anyone why it is important. Wikipedia is there to provide information about the topic, not persuade people to find it important. If someone is looking for an explanation of what algorithmic bias is, they can find it in the lead now, I think. If they don't think discrimination and bias is important, it's not our job to convince them. Wikipedia is neutral, above all else. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Perhaps my words are not ideal. MOS:INTRO says The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead (but not by using subjective "peacock terms" such as "acclaimed" or "award-winning" or "hit").--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:33, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Next, I will check the broadness of the article, though i don't expect many issues there.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Broadness

• Popular culture does not appear to be mentioned much in secondary sources (just something about Minority report here), so this can be skipped for GA.

• Great, agree. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Here, here (doi:10.1215/07402775-3813015) and here interventions are mentioned to prevent or decrease algorithmic bias. You haven't mentioned this much.

• The first article linked is a summary of ethical problems posed by algorithms and an attempt at a taxonomy, which I've already created based on a more widely-cited paper. It also essentially says that algorithmic bias isn't a problem unless it has real-world consequences, which is already addressed in the article. The second outlines some attempts by Google and Microsoft, which I've added to the end of the history section. The third is interesting but isn't actually proposing mitigation, it's instead proposing an alternative form of measuring algorithmic bias; however, it is only a working paper (a proposal for research) and hasn't actually been tested. Once there are results of an actual research study instead of a proposal, I'll be eager to incorporate that into a broader section on mitigation. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• Algorithms can sometimes be better than human decisions. This is not mentioned in the article.

  Great find. I've included it as the first line in the "contemporary critiques and responses" section, to help set the context. Because the article is about the problem of bias in algorithms, I don't think it is essential to delve into all of the algorithms that are unbiased, which seems a bit like listing all the horses that a car is not. But, I think for equal weight and context, this is an important perspective, so I have introduced it very early in the section, though briefly. I think it's fair. --Owlsmcgee (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

That's all: the article is comprehensive in describing the problem and its origins.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay. I think the broadness of the article passes.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:35, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

Waiting for your responses.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Farang Rak Tham. I will tackle these soon — I know the GA process should take about a week, but I've just seen these notes now. If it's at all possible to give me until the end of July to tackle this I would appreciate it. -- Owlsmcgee (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give you more time this time round. --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:58, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Putting on hold for now.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Up to date, Farang Rak Tham! Have a look and let me know what you think. Thanks again! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I am glad you are continuing with this. I'll take another look.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at the lead again, I think your recent edits sufficiently address the noteworthiness of the subject matter. I don't see any reason not to pass the article for GA. Congratulations! I am happy to see you made it through. Perhaps you will think I have been a rather fuzzy reviewer, but I would not want to get the article delisted at a later time by some other editor that comes along and doesn't know how much effort you put into this.

If you have time sometimes, feel free to also review one of my GA nominations at WP:GAN#REL. See you around! --Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:47, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the thoughtful attention, Farang Rak Tham. I appreciate your patience as well! --Owlsmcgee (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.