User talk:Rusalkii/Archives/2024/March

Hi User:Rusalkii You recently green-lighted this page of mine. User:Tvx1 came to note that the page reads as an essay. We had a long exchange at Talk:Resisting AI: An Anti-fascist Approach to Artificial Intelligence, after which we remain in disagreement, with User:Tvx1 insisting that I am doing a synthesis, and hence no encyclopedic material, and me insisting that I did not a synthesis but faithfully reported secondary sources. Is it appropriate that I ask you for help on this? Who is right? My problem is that in spite of the suggestions offered by User:Tvx1 I really do not say how I could do this page any different. Please do not hesitates to turn this request down if this is not the proper way to address the matter. Best Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don’t know what I can do to make you inderstand the issue. The entire article needs to be rewritten. It needs a section to has an encyclopedia summary, bases on sedondary and independent, of the contents of the book without such sentence structures as “the author notes” and then you can optionally have a criticism/review section with properly attributed reviews.Tvx1 18:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You imply that I am especially inept at understanding your explanations. Thanks. Here once more my view:

1. Dan McQuillan has written a book where he offers us his reading of the problem with AI. It is not a treaty of trigonometry nor a novel. It is mostly a book of analysis (how we should see AI) and advocacy (what we should do about that). It is hence a book containing opinions as easily noted by whomever has read the book (me, the secondary sources, others).
2. The job of the encyclopedia in this case is to tell the reader what these opinions are, and on what they are grounded, so that the reader can judge of their merit.
3. As a Wikipedia author, I need to do this using not my judgment, but what the secondary sources say about the above.
4. Let us start with one sentence from my text as as an example.

   The author uses the expression ‘AI violence’ to describe how – based on opaque proprietary algorithms – various actors can inflict damage or discriminate categories of people from accessing jobs, loans, medical care or other benefits.^[1]

   The objective of the sentence just quoted is to explain to the reader what is the meaning of AI violence, a central theme of the book. I explain the meaning of the expression and what are the reason for using this expression. This is not my opinion, but how the opinion of McQuilled as registered by the source^[1].

5. Let us now tackle the author notes censured by User:Tvx1, in the final section of the page, section Critique

   Notwithstanding the ‘fascist’ in the title of the work, the author notes^[2] that while not all AI is fascist, this emerging technology of control may end up being deployed by fascist or authoritarian regimes. On the critical side, more than one review^[3][4] points to a partial disconnect between the broad social critique of the work and its anchoring to the workings of AI.

   The job here is to tell the reader where fascist in the title comes from - a point noted as relevant in all reviews - and what the author has to say about that. This the author notes is based on and backed by reference.^[2] The section critique closes on how two reviews register a disconnect about the social critique and its anchoring in the workings of AI - one more proof - if it were need - of the fact that the book of McQuillan is an academic text full of reflections and opinions that User:Tvx1 likes to attribute to my pen.

Hope this illustration is useful. Regards Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC) Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Saltean @Tvx1 It looks like you've asked for a third opinion on the talk page; my personal opinion is that the article could use improvement in the direction Tvx pointed out, since the prose tends to take the author's opinions too uncritically and makes too little distinction between them and Wikipedia's opinions. However, on the scale of such issues I've seen at AfC it's not bad at all.

I suggest waiting for the formal second opinion, but my advice would be for Saltean to stop worrying about whether the article has a banner up top, it isn't actually a big deal, and for TvX to make the improvements they think are necessary and see if Saltean actually objects to any of the specific changes they want. As far as I can tell no specific changes to the article are actually in dispute, and just arguing about whether it deserves a banner is pointless. Rusalkii (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks User:Rusalkii for finding the time for this. Will follow your suggestion. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I did not censure anything. Please strike that accusation.Tvx1 19:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, is it OK if I say something like disapproved or found inappropriate? This was the meaning I implied and was not an accusation. Apologies if you felt it that way. I welcome your direct editing in the page under discussion if you want to follow the advice of our guest Rusalkii. Best! Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The fist thing I wanted to do is let you know that there is a phot of mine without an attribution on the "Achatinella" entry. I am an Associate Professor of Ecology and a rare Hawaiian tree snail expert, several of my peer-reviewed publications are cited on the page, but the picture is also mine and lacks a photo credit. --Bholland.hpu.edu (talk) 02:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Bholland.hpu.edu, could you point out which photo? There's a couple on the page. Rusalkii (talk) 05:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear mentor, good evening. Billions of human beings are coming to this world, getting older with lot of experiences and dying at last. Of course, everyone develops some opinion / recommendation from his life experience, either bitter or sweet, which could be of great use for next generation. But most of them don't get space or chance to put forward those opinion / recommendation to the suitable platform. For a long time, I am thinking to make such an online platform. People of next generation could get those fruitful opinion / recommendation at the earlier stage of their life, than those of opinion / recommendation maker, who achieved at the late stage of their life from long struggle. Can u pl help me for doing it ?

I am a former officer of Bangladesh Navy. After retirement, I am serving in the civil sector.

Regards. --Arshipupu (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Arshipupu, I can answer questions related to wikipedia, not development of an unrelated social media platform. Good luck with your project, though! Rusalkii (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

The Special Barnstar

Somewhat as an apology / good humor in us running into each other in the new pages feed, thanks as always for your help in patrolling! Your patrols are spot on and definitely appreciated :D (As a side note, I was going to RfD Initiative because the Popular initiative page used to be at that title and I wanted to gauge the PTOPIC, but now I agree that boldly targeting the disambiguation page was the correct WP:NOTBURO solution there and what I would have suggested, so thanks for your boldness 👍) Utopes (talk / cont) 01:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

And thanks for your tireless patrolling as well! It's always good to see a friendly face even if it means we bump into each other a bit. I've moved down the queue a bit, hopefully it'll give us a little more space. (And yeah, I got halfway through writing up the RfD and then decided I'd just do it and wait for someone to complain, the original creation looked like a page move artifact and not a considered decision about the PTOPIC.) Rusalkii (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rusalkii. About 6 months ago, I disclosed a COI here and requested a Gizmodo article be added as a citation to balance a controversy about my employer Lenovo. In a nutshell, the section accuses Lenovo of spying for China, whereas Gizmodo says that's just media sensationalism. Would you be willing to review my request as an impartial editor? StuartGill (talk) 15:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Done on Lenovo page. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello I've joined WP with the initial intention of editing just one page ('Selectron tube'). I have extensive material to contribute to this page. I am a research scientist and have published many peer-reviewed journal articles in physics. I feel that I can adequately write technical prose. That said, I am new here and I am uncertain of the editing 'ethos'. When i make edits, are past authors notified? Is there a way to share draft edits with past authors to get their thoughts - or do we just jump in, publish my changes, and let past authors edit the live document?

Many thanks for the mentorship. --Professor-of-Physics&EE (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@Professor-of-Physics&EE anyone who wants to be notified of changes to an article can put it on their watchlist, but past authors aren't notified automatically. If you want, you can ask for thoughts on proposed edits on the talk page, but except for controversial edits on high-traffic pages the standard thing is to just make the change and let people revert or discuss afterward if there are issues. There's an essay about this at WP:BEBOLD.

Do note though that Wikipedia style is pretty different from technical journal articles. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics_and_astronomy or Wikipedia:Good_articles/Natural_sciences#Physics for some examples of physics-related articles that have been reviewed by the community. Rusalkii (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)