This article was nominated for deletion on 14 January 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Problems
editThis article sounds incredibly colloquial. It looks as if it was written by Ben Goertzel himself. Also, as mentioned just below, the publications section is larger than just about any I've ever seen on Wikipedia. I suggest this page is reduced to two or three paragraphs of essential information, and four or five publications are selected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.121.44 (talk) 15:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
- He's a public figure in perhaps the most important and fastest growing area in modern times now that deserves every word in the article. 108.93.181.106 (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
There is no reference to his main role and current project, SinguarityNET, that he has founded and he is running as CEO since 2017....also no reference to his main area of research AGI (artificial General Intelligence) and also no reference to his work with Sophia which is what he is most famous for..--Nevermind-Punk (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Nevermind-Punk: Any such mention has to be cited to a reliable source. — MarkH21talk 17:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, you could use the feature by The New York times as a reliable source. Thre is also an infinite amount of coverage, talks, podcasts etc. on the topic..Nevermind-Punk (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- Please directly cite one. See WP:CITE — MarkH21talk 17:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
- You added it back without citing a reference again. — MarkH21talk 14:58, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
List of Papers
editWhy have we listed this person's entire CV / list of papers? Perhaps his books are notable enough for this article, but a pub list is just a reference data dump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.177.194 (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see substantial in-depth coverage of OpenCog in secondary publications, so the usual standard for a separate article is not met. The bio here is very short, so I propose we merge the stubby software article here. Pcap ping 12:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not; OpenCog is more than just Ben. (Although Ben is highly influential, he's written little, if any, of the source code; that alone suggests a distinct article.) The project regularly gets 50-100 applications for GSOC, and accepts 7-10 students each summer; its visible in the community. (Full disclosure: I've contributed about 5-10% of the core opencog source code, and maintain the NLP components, including RelEx and Link Grammar.) linas (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
- Opencog is currently widely referred to in Wikipedia. It is not clear that it deserves its own page, but making this the page for OpenCog is definitely not the right answer. Ben is here because he is widely read. OpenCog must stand or fall on its own merits (is it actually widely used? or is it - as the numbers above suggest - used by less people than many tools that do not have their own page). Bitstrat (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- It could be a {{R to section}}. Google has no trouble indexing section headings of articles these days... The artificial consciousness article introduce it as "Ben Goertzel's OpenCog", and Strong AI uses similar wording. Most of the links to this article are from other Goertzel stuff: Artificial General Intelligence Research Institute or Probabilistic logic network, which aren't incredibly notable either. Pcap ping 18:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Ben Goertzel's OpenCog" is only used on artificial consciousness because the other two are introduced as possessives. N.B. I'm also a major contributor to OpenCog (Joel Pitt on the OpenCog page, not very notable at the moment tho :p) 121.98.81.17 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
- Opencog is currently widely referred to in Wikipedia. It is not clear that it deserves its own page, but making this the page for OpenCog is definitely not the right answer. Ben is here because he is widely read. OpenCog must stand or fall on its own merits (is it actually widely used? or is it - as the numbers above suggest - used by less people than many tools that do not have their own page). Bitstrat (talk) 08:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Is Novamente still working on their approach for artificial general intelligence? Their site hasn't been updated for a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.36.96.230 (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, this comment is from Ben Goertzel. It doesn't make sense to merge OpenCog's page with my biography page. OpenCog is its own project which would continue if I was hit by a truck. To answer another question: yeah, Novamente LLC is alive and well, though it's true the webpage hasn't been updated lately. We're doing mostly US gov't AI consulting work these days, and also co-sponsoring the OpenCog project at Hong Kong Polytechnic University. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.106.47 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I agree, OpenCog should be it's own separate article. OpenCog is maintained my many people. Merging the two would be like merging the wikileaks article with Julian Assange, or the 'Hard Problem of Consciousness' with David Chalmers. Don't merge the two. 122.151.227.204 (talk) 03:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, once more vote not to merge OpenCog and keep as separate articles as they are very separate.Gioto (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Poorly sourced personal information
editPer Wikipedia policy, specifically "consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value ... the presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects..." I will soon be removing all weakly-sourced personal information from this page. Regular editors of this page, please raise any discussions or objections here. dhart (talk) 05:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ben Goertzel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071021201150/http://computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=11&articleId=9036438&intsrc=hm_topic to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=11&articleId=9036438&intsrc=hm_topic
- Added
{{dead link}}
tag to http://139.78.75.247/WCCI-Web_Panel_bio.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC)