Wikipedia

Black in AI

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joojay (talk | contribs) at 04:03, 22 December 2021 (Submitting (AFCH 0.9.1)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

  • Comment: Fair enough, I really don't think I could have been any more specific. But I'll bow out and perhaps you'll get a different reviewer who can explain things better. HighKing++ 21:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: This feels like a heavily bias process for AFC. No specifics are ever given, just a blanket response and constantly telling me, "you misunderstood". I can't work with that, and this has been a waste of time. Perhaps someone else can review this, and give me actual specific feedback if it's needed. Joojay (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Joojay, there still appears to be a misunderstanding. The easiest way to understand the issue is to think of it as there being two types of sources. The first, the most common, are used to support facts/information within the content of an article. The usual guidelines apply such as WP:RS, etc. Most of these references may fail NCORP as they do not meet the guidelines for establishing the notability of the topic organization. So the second are a subset of the first but the key difference is that they also meet NCORP. We need at least two of the second type in order to confirm that the topic organization is notable. You say "there are a ton of citations" which is true, but there doesn't appear to be any that meet NCORP as I've explained. HighKing++ 19:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can you point me to the problematic sources, so they can be removed?
    There are a ton of citations for "Black in AI", I am happy to keep working on this to get it to a place that looks better for you. Joojay (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Joojay at no point in my discussion did I connect mainstream news articles with having commercial ties to the subject. I have reread my last comment and I can see that it is unclear - I intended to explain how NCORP defines "Independent" and that there are two facets *both* of which must be met. It is relatively easy to meet the first facet (no corporate connections between publisher and topic company) but you've ignored the second facet which is "Independent Content" (or Intellectual Independence). Please read the definition of "Independent Content" in WP:ORGIND. Afterwards, you should understand why an article that reproduces an interview from a founder does not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of an organization and from there you'll understand that the *content* of an article used to establish notability must contain *both* in-depth information on the topic org *and* contain "Independent Content". HighKing++ 10:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am reading your links, but I don't understand how you are connecting mainstream news articles with having commercial ties to the subject of the article? I am an experienced editor here. I don't see how all 12 sources are considered not independent sources? Can you be more specific? Joojay (talk) 21:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Joojay, NCORP is also for organizations. The very first sentence in the draft says it is an organization hence why NCORP was applied. You also say they are "independent sources" but the word "independent" is misconstrued and misinterpreted in other topic areas. NCORP contains a better explanation and explains "Functional Independence" where the publishing organization has no commercial ties with the topic company but also "Intellectual Independence" where the content of the reference articles is not relying on information provided by the topic company or connected individuals. None of the references contain "Independent Content" as per WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 21:17, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: @HighKing: I understand your point, however this isn't a corporation or company. This is a conference turned org - and the entire news article is about the conference. Most all of these are independent sources and not PR like BBC News, MIT Tech Review, etc. I am not understanding this rejection. Joojay (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Joojay, not sure if you fully grasped what is required. As per WP:SIRS, references must meet all the criteria which includes CORPDEPTH *and* ORGIND. So, first of all, nobody is doubting the existence of the organization so references that merely mention it do not meet the criteria for establishing notability. Also, please remember that you can use all sorts of references to support facts and data (so long as they meet WP:RS, etc) but we have stricter criteria for establishing notability so when I say a reference fails NCORP, I am not saying it cannot be used. So, that said, looking at the BBC reference for example, where's the in-depth information *on the company*? There is none. Or looking at the reference from MIT Tech Review, same question. Also, if there was any in-depth information in that article, it would have been provided by Gebru so not "Independent Content" and would fails ORGIND. The rest of the references fail in similar fashion. Can you maybe chase down some references which contain in-depth information on the organization but which meets the requirement for "Independent Content" as per ORGIND? HighKing++ 21:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: @HighKing: Examples of in-depth sources used here: "Canada refuses visas to over a dozen African AI researchers" from BBC; "We're in a diversity crisis": cofounder of Black in AI on what's poisoning algorithms in our lives" from MIT Tech Review; "Black AI Workshop Becomes Latest Flashpoint in Techs Culture War" from Bloomberg; "How one conference embraced diversity" from Nature magazine, "Canada denied visas to dozens of Africans for a big artificial intelligence conference" from Science magazine.
    A redirect does not make sense since this org is only co-founded by Timnit Gebru and some of these citations literally don't even mention her by name (such as "A Computer Scientist Who Tackles Inequality Through Algorithms" from Quanta Magazine). Joojay (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The topic is about an organization therefore must meet WP:NCORP guidelines. NCORP requires (at least) two references that contain *both* in-depth information *about* the *organization* and "Independent Content" (see WP:ORGIND for explanation). None of the references in the article meet the criteria, as they rely on announcements or interviews with Timnit or information provided by the organization. I've looked around and I can't find any references that meet the criteria because most of the articles are really an interview with someone connected to the organization. Perhaps best to redirect this to the Gebru article? HighKing++ 20:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: Updates have been made to the article today, including multiple new non- trivial RS citations. Joojay (talk) 21:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)


Black in AI, formally called the Black in AI Workshop, is a technology research organization and affinity group, founded by computer scientists Timnit Gebru and Rediet Abebe in 2017.[1][2][3] It started as a conference workshop, later pivoting into an organization. Black in AI increases the presence and inclusion of Black people in the field of artificial intelligence (AI) by creating space for sharing ideas, fostering collaborations, mentorship and advocacy.[4][5][6]

Black in AI
Formation2017; 7 years ago (2017)
FounderRediet Abebe, Timnit Gebru
HeadquartersPalo Alto, California, U.S.
Websitehttps://blackinai.github.io/#/

History

Black in AI was created in 2017 to address issues of lack of diversity in AI workshops,[4][7] and was started as its own workshop within the Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS) conference.[8] Because of algorithmic bias, ethical issues, and underrepresentation of Black people in AI roles; there has been an ongoing need for unity within the AI community to have focus on these issues. Black in AI has strived to continue the progress of improving the presence of people of color in the field of artificial intelligence.[9]

In 2018 and 2019, the Black in AI workshop had many immigration visa issues to Canada, which spurred the conference to be planned for 2020 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.[10][11][12] On December 7th, 2020, Black in AI held its 4th annual workshop and 1st virtual workshop (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

In 2021, Black in AI, along side the groups Queer in AI, and Widening NLP released a public statement refusing funding from Google, in an act of protest of Google's treatment of Timnit Gebru, Margaret Mitchell, and April Christina Curley in the events that occurred in December 2020.[13][14]

See also

References

  1. ^ ""We're in a diversity crisis": cofounder of Black in AI on what's poisoning algorithms in our lives". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2021-01-18.
  2. ^ Hao, Karen (December 4, 2020). "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here's what it says". MIT Technology Review. Retrieved 2021-08-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  3. ^ Crowell, Rachel (2021-04-01). "A Computer Scientist Who Tackles Inequality Through Algorithms". Quanta Magazine. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  4. ^ a b "What Really Happened When Google Ousted Timnit Gebru". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  5. ^ "Black AI Workshop Becomes Latest Flashpoint in Techs Culture War". Bloomberg.com. October 20, 2017. Retrieved 2021-08-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. ^ Walton, Abriana (2021-03-03). "Meet Rediet Abebe, the Ethiopian Computer Scientist Using AI to Fight Socioeconomic Inequality". AfroTech. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  7. ^ Silva, Victor (2020-12-16). "Organizing Black in AI 2020". Medium. Retrieved 2021-01-18.
  8. ^ "How one conference embraced diversity". Nature. 564 (7735): 161–162. 2018-12-12. doi:10.1038/d41586-018-07718-x. PMID 31123357. S2CID 54481549.
  9. ^ Conroy, Gemma; Jia, Hepeng; Plackett, Benjamin; Tay, Andy (2020-12-09). "Six researchers who are shaping the future of artificial intelligence". Nature. 588 (7837): S114–S117. doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03411-0. PMID 33299216.
  10. ^ Smith, Craig S. (2019-11-19). "Dealing With Bias in Artificial Intelligence". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  11. ^ Hutson, Matthew (2018-12-12). "Canada denied visas to dozens of Africans for a big artificial intelligence conference". Science magazine. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Retrieved 2021-08-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  12. ^ "Canada refuses visas to over a dozen African AI researchers". BBC News. 2019-11-15. Retrieved 2021-08-22.
  13. ^ Johnson, Khari. "Black and Queer AI Groups Say They'll Spurn Google Funding". Wired. ISSN 1059-1028. Retrieved 2021-12-22.
  14. ^ Tiku, Nitasha (2021-03-04). "Google's approach to historically Black schools helps explain why there are few Black engineers in Big Tech". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 2021-12-22.


This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_in_AI&oldid=1061512511"