Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 00:12, 21 December 2024

This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia 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 is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been marked as needing immediate attention. Creationism: Intelligent design 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 is supported by Intelligent design task force (assessed as Low-importance). Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women scientists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science 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.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. 18.85.44.145 (talk · contribs) / Rosalind Picard This user has contributed to the article.

Archives

Special poetry archive Archive 1 (May 2006 — May 2008) Archive 2 (May 2008 — September 2009)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Rosalind Picard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080328121832/http://mitpress.mit.edu:80/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=4060 to http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?tid=4060&ttype=2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222054934/http://www.scholarpedia.org:80/article/Affective_Computing to http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Affective_computing
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420205157/http://byte.com:80/art/9802/sec3/art9.htm to http://www.byte.com/art/9802/sec3/art9.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mind-Body

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2023 and 31 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Juldau30, Alexgoriani, L.tambo, Glennvalentine7, Yousefsohaib (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Macbookair101 (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Request for Consensus: NeurIPS 2024 Keynote Controversy

Hello editors, I would like to discuss the inclusion of a recent controversy involving Rosalind Picard’s keynote speech at NeurIPS 2024.

Context: During the NeurIPS 2024 keynote, a slide presented by Picard included remarks that were criticized for cultural generalizations. NeurIPS issued an official statement on their verified X.com account acknowledging the issue, apologizing, and clarifying that the remarks do not align with their code of conduct. I added this incident to the article with a factual and neutral tone, citing NeurIPS' official statement as the source. However, the edit was reverted with the reasoning that more than a primary source is needed.

My Argument: While Misplaced Pages prefers secondary sources, the NeurIPS statement is a **reliable primary source** for verifying the occurrence of the incident. It:

1. Comes from NeurIPS’ official and verified X.com account.
2. Is a direct response to the controversy.

Since this is a very recent event, secondary sources may not yet exist. I propose the following:

• Include a brief, factual mention of the incident, using the NeurIPS statement as a **temporary source**.
• Commit to revising or expanding the content once independent secondary coverage emerges.

This approach aligns with Misplaced Pages’s principles of **verifiability** and **neutrality** while addressing the timeliness of the incident.

Suggested Wording: At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard’s keynote presentation included remarks that drew criticism for cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. NeurIPS issued a statement acknowledging the remarks and clarifying that they do not align with the conference’s code of conduct.

I welcome input from other editors to form a consensus on this matter.

Request for Feedback: I kindly request editors' input on whether this edit can be retained temporarily with a primary source until reliable secondary sources become available.

Notifications for Wider Participation: Related WikiProjects: - @WikiProject Biography: - @WikiProject Artificial Intelligence:

I have also notified the editors at the relevant WikiProjects to gather broader perspectives.

Pinging Involved Editors: @Hammersoft, @Isabelle_Belato: Your feedback would be greatly appreciated as this discussion develops. Thank you!

Thank you all for considering this. I look forward to working collaboratively to reach a consensus. Lancer999 (talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

— Lancer999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

First, I fixed a number of format issues with your post. All the headers and subheaders etc. was making this difficult. Further, your use of pings did not work; this isn't how ping is used. You can't ping a project, only specific users, and placing a "@" before their username doesn't ping them. Further, not signing your post will mean the ping doesn't work even if you formatted it correctly. See {{ping}} for instructions.

Second, this is a negative comment being made on a biography of a living person. Using only what is effectively a primary source is not going to be sufficient for inclusion. That it is a very recent event (in fact, the conference is going on right now) doesn't mean it gets a special pass to be included. Please find reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject to support this inclusion. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: New Secondary Source Found; Thank you for fixing the format issues with my previous post.

I have found a public apology from Dr. Rosalind Picard addressing the NeurIPS keynote controversy. This serves as a reliable secondary source documenting her response to the incident. I will update the section to reflect both the NeurIPS response and Picard's apology.

If there are concerns, I welcome further discussion here. Thank you! Lancer999 (talk) 14 December 2024 — Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

First, you don't need to put a new section head every time you make a comment. Second, the "secondary" source you added is a primary source; it's Picard directly. Do NOT restore this at least until you provide multiple reliable, secondary sources. I strongly advise you gain consensus before restoring this. Also, carefully read WP:SECONDARY. The subject of the BLP making a statement is not a secondary source. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right that Picard’s statement is a primary source, and I appreciate the guidance on WP:SECONDARY. I would like to move forward carefully and in line with BLP standards.

Currently, we have: - NeurIPS’s public statement addressing the controversy. - Picard’s own apology.

While these are primary sources, they confirm that an incident occurred and that it was addressed. I will look for independent, secondary sources (e.g., media coverage or analysis) to validate this further.

I welcome input from other editors on the best way to proceed here. -- Lancer999 (talk) 14 December 2024 — Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

This can serve as a secondary source. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/jnovikova_neurips2024-ugcPost-7273757246289801216-XDUk/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop 72.28.92.143 (talk) 01:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It's effectively a blog post. Think; New York Times, Chicago tribune, BBC, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

@Lancer999: Whilst I can find a large amount of edit-and-revert, I can't find any indication that WP:RFCBEFORE has been exhausted. Why do you feel that a full-blown thirty-day formal RfC is necessary here? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I've pulled the {{rfc}} tag. The original poster has six edits in total, all on the same day. It's clear that raising an RfC was the action of an unfamiliar newbie. But discussion may continue: just not as a formal WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Where is the brief, neutral question about what you are proposing for inclusion in the article? See WP:RFCBRIEF. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

The article currently contains a quote about "biases by making generalisations about Chinese scholars". Two sources are cited at the end of that sentence (one from QQ.com and one from CTOL Digital Solutions). I could not find that quote in either of those two sources. I have concluded that the CTOL Digital Solutions source is not reliable. It appears to violate WP:UGC. It accepts user-generated content (even anonymous content) and does not appear to have editorial oversight by humans (only by some computer program). I also wonder whether the QQ.com source is reliable (and it is in Chinese, so its content cannot be easily verified by English-language readers). I tagged the quote for failing verification, but my addition of the tag was quickly reverted. Which source has that quote? Moreover, I am also removing the CTOL citation. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That specific quote you mention comes from this post on Twitter, which is included in that QQ article, which I find questionable as well. I also tagged this sentence - Her remarks was criticized for being racist and received backlashes from many AI researchers. - per MOS:WEASEL and MOS:RACIST. Considering this is a BLP, we need multiple high-quality sources covering her remarks, in order for this content to be DUE for inclusion. I support the immediate removal of this content per BLP. This content is poorly sourced and should have never been added. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it as being poorly sourced. Since the material has been disputed by multiple editors, the WP:ONUS is on those who want to re-add it to achieve consensus first. WP:BLPRESTORE applies as well - To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to restore it must ensure it complies with Misplaced Pages's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: Ha, Anthony (December 15, 2024). "NeurIPS keynote speaker apologizes for reference to Chinese student". TechCrunch. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:TECHCRUNCH - not exactly an optimal source for a BLP, but if there were some other high-quality sources to go along with it, then it might be due for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

She issued an apology. Meaning, the incident indeed did occur, see official statement by MIT . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.54.222.134 (talk) 14:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I believe this article from South China Morning Post would be an adequate high quality source:

• Chinese ‘behaviour’ remarks by MIT scientist Rosalind Picard rattle top AI conference

Other sources for consideration:

• NeurIPS: An apology and commitment to moving forward by MIT
• Dr. Rosalind Picard’s Apology to the NeurIPS Community from the official NeurIPS website

The chronicles of life (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

— The chronicles of life (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but this is likely the starting point for my Misplaced Pages "career". In any case, I am merely providing the high quality sources that would be worthy of consideration for citation. I leave it up to the seasoned Misplaced Pages experts to reach consensus on proper wording and an accurate account of the events. The chronicles of life (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages! My flagging of your comment was not intended to discourage participation or to imply that new participants don't have valuable things to say. It's just that there have sometimes been difficulties with newly registered accounts in the past – e.g., with what are known as WP:SOCKPUPPETS. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, SCMP is a better source. One thing all you newly created accounts need to understand is that Misplaced Pages is not on a deadline, especially when it involves a BLP and accusations of racism. Misplaced Pages is not a "breaking news source", sometimes we have to wait for reliable sources to catch up and document the incident before we can include contentious material. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

@Isaidnoway, that makes sense. I will continue to educate myself on the conventions and rules of Wikpedia. The chronicles of life (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Since we have SCMP as the reliably secondar source, I propose updating the article with the following content, which includes both the SCMP article and official responses (NeurIPS statement and Picard’s apology):

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. During the Q&A session, an audience member challenged Picard for unnecessarily emphasizing the student’s nationality. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."

In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement acknowledging that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race." The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future.

Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

I believe this edit is well-sourced, neutral, and reflects all perspectives. Please share any feedback or concerns.

Lancer999 (talk) 16 December 2024 (UTC)

References

1. https://www.media.mit.edu/posts/neurips-apology-moving-forward/
2. Dannie Peng (2024-12-16). "Chinese 'behaviour' remarks by MIT scientist Rosalind Picard rattle top AI conference". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 2024-12-16.
3. "NeurIPS Official Statement:Our Commitment to Respect, Inclusivity, and Upholding Our Values". NeurIPS. 2024-12-16. Retrieved 2024-12-16.
4. "Rosalind Picard public apology". MIT Media Lab. 2024-12-16. Retrieved 2024-12-16.

That refers to "a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars". The only cultural generalization I see on that slide is where it says "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." There is something very similar at the bottom of the slide. Is that the generalization referred to there? —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I also question the word "emphasizing". In what way was the student's nationality emphasized? I also question the use of "acknowledging", since that implies validity in Wikivoice (see WP:SAID). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this question. While the comment "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is indeed one explicit cultural generalization on the slide, the criticism is not limited to this sentence.

The broader concern arises from the fact that during the keynote, Dr. Rosalind Picard presented multiple examples of misconduct by students, but the nationality of the student was only explicitly mentioned in one case: the anecdote involving the Chinese student. The student was quoted as saying, “Nobody at my school taught us morals or values,” which, combined with the explicit mention of nationality and the subsequent generalization, created a negative and unnecessary association between misconduct and Chinese nationality.

This selective reference to nationality, where it was unrelated to the point being made, drew criticism during the Q&A session. An audience member highlighted that this was the only instance where nationality was mentioned, suggesting that it was “a bit offensive.” Criticism from researchers and attendees on social media, as well as NeurIPS' and Picard's subsequent apologies, further underscore the issue.

The concerns, therefore, go beyond the specific comment about "most Chinese" and extend to the unnecessary emphasis on nationality in a context where it was irrelevant. I hope this helps clarify why the incident sparked such discussion. Lancer999 (talk) 02:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The comment that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright" is the only explicit cultural generalization on the slide. There aren't any others. The rest is a matter of interpretation. Also, there is a difference between emphasizing something and mentioning it. The slide mentions the student's nationality, but I don't see an emphasis on it. Calling it a "selective reference" is an interpretation, not an obvious fact. It does not seem clear that she did that selectively and intentionally. If someone had pointed out in advance that she hadn't mentioned a national background in other examples, I very strongly suspect she would have done something about that problem before giving the presentation. It was a mistake, but not an intentional slur against Chinese people generally – in fact it explicitly says exactly the opposite. Also, the quote she attributed to the student did not say "nobody in the Chinese culture teaches morals and values", and it was also not intended as a quote of her own views on the subject – it was an alleged quote from someone whose excuse was not accepted and who was expelled. She was not endorsing the student's excuse. I'm not saying there were no problems with her presentation, but her presentation didn't say Chinese people generally lack morality. It explicitly said otherwise. The rest is interpretation. There is no clear "therefore" here. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

You raise important points, but I’d like to clarify why the critique centers not just on the explicit statements, but also on the context and the selective nature of the reference to nationality, which contributed to the perceived cultural generalization.

1. Selective Mention of Nationality:

While it’s true that nationality was “mentioned” rather than “emphasized,” the fact remains that out of multiple examples of misconduct Picard shared, this was the only instance where a student's nationality was explicitly referenced. Regardless of intention, the selective mention creates an association between nationality and misconduct, even if the subsequent comment about honesty sought to counterbalance that. The criticism arises from the unintended implication rather than any explicit endorsement of stereotypes.

2. Context Matters:

The slide does indeed say “Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright,” which, as you point out, explicitly rejects the generalization that all Chinese scholars lack morality. However, combining that statement with the earlier quote — “Nobody at my school taught us morals or values” — and specifying the nationality contributes to the broader concern. The inclusion of nationality was unnecessary for her argument and inadvertently perpetuated a harmful stereotype.

3. Audience Perception:

The Q&A session and reactions from attendees, as well as subsequent apologies from both Dr. Picard and the NeurIPS organizers, underscore that the audience clearly interpreted the presentation as problematic. While interpretations may vary, the reaction from prominent members of the AI community, such as researchers Furong Huang and Jiao Sun, highlights the impact that this selective mention of nationality had on the audience.

4. Unintended Consequences Still Matter:

I agree with you that there is no evidence of intentional malice in Dr. Picard’s remarks; it appears to have been an oversight rather than an intentional slur. However, the impact of her words remains significant. The NeurIPS Code of Conduct underscores the importance of fostering an inclusive environment, and unintentionally singling out a specific nationality violates that principle. Dr. Picard herself acknowledged this in her apology, recognizing that the reference was unnecessary, irrelevant to her point, and caused unintended harm.

5. Why It’s Not Just Interpretation:

The selective mention of nationality — combined with the attributed quote — is not merely subjective interpretation. It is a fact that the Chinese student’s nationality was mentioned, while other students’ backgrounds were not. The resulting perception and criticism stem from this discrepancy.

In summary, while Dr. Picard’s intentions may have been to highlight individual misconduct rather than generalize about a group, the selective reference to nationality, combined with the broader framing of the slide, created unintended but real associations. This is why both NeurIPS organizers and Dr. Picard have publicly acknowledged the issue and apologized. Lancer999 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We seem to disagree less than it might appear. Although I think the word "selective" implies a bad intent that may have been absent. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's the revised edit based your feedbacks:

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Rosalind Picard's keynote address on AI ethics drew controversy due to a slide that included cultural generalizations about Chinese scholars. Her comments drew immediate criticism. In her keynote, nationality was mentioned in one specific example of misconduct, while other examples did not include such references. This inconsistency led to concerns about unnecessary emphasis on nationality, as raised by attendees and commentators. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments reflected "a deeply troubling and racist view of Chinese scholars," calling the remarks "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening."

In response to the incident, the NeurIPS Board and 2024 Organizing Committee issued an official statement stating that Picard's remarks "perpetuated harmful stereotypes" and violated their Code of Conduct. The board reaffirmed their commitment to fostering an inclusive, non-discriminatory environment and stated, "We take this matter extremely seriously and do not tolerate discrimination on any basis, including national origin, ethnicity, or race." The statement included plans to better communicate the Code of Conduct to invited speakers to prevent similar issues in the future. Picard also issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

Please let me know if you have any feedback or concerns. Lancer999 (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Two paragraphs is too much to devote to this incident. It's not like she has a pattern of consistently and continually doing this, so there is no need to overemphasize a one-time mistake she made. And the SCMP source doesn't say "attendees and commentators". There was one attendee and one commentator in that SCMP article. I propose a more succinct summary of the incident in one paragraph, which is all that is needed.

At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee, due to Picard highlighting the Chinese nationality of a university student in an example of misbehaviour, while other examples did not include such references. Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that the comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted.

Isaidnoway (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. And and the specific problems in the previous suggested version seem to have been acknowledged but not corrected. Just reading the first sentence is enough to show that. It says her slide "included cultural generalizations". The word "generalizations" is plural, but her slide only included one, and the sentence doesn't say what the generalization was. It is problematic to assert there were generalizations without saying what these (apparently terrible) generalizations were. The only clearly identified generalization on the slide is that the Chinese people she knows are generally "honest and morally upright". As a further refinement, I suggest this: "At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that "Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright." Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were "not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening." Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused "unintended negative associations" that she deeply regretted." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful feedback on summarizing this incident. I’d like to propose some adjustments to ensure the article reflects the full scope of its impact and coverage. While the current proposals focus on criticism from an attendee and Furong Huang, it’s important to note that the controversy sparked widespread backlash beyond these individuals, including reactions on social media and within the academic and technology communities. Additional points of relevance include:

1. According to an MSN report (can be used as an additional secondary reference) , the incident "sparked a backlash on social media, with not only Chinese netizens criticizing Picard for racial discrimination, but also members of the academic and technology communities expressing disapproval, calling her actions inappropriate and clearly biased."

2. A petition on Change.org urging MIT to investigate Picard's actions has gathered over 7,000 signatures.

3. The NeurIPS conference organizers issued a formal response, stated that it conflicted with their principles of inclusion and respect.

Question:

Do you agree that the broader social media and academic/tech community backlash, as well as the NeurIPS organizers’ response, should be included to provide a fuller account of the event? Lancer999 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I oppose any addition of content implying that Picard is a racist. While social media users and academic/tech are entitled to their opinions, their opinions are just that, they are in no position to make such a judgement call, without backing up their assertions with clear and convincing evidence that demonstrates this is a pattern of conduct with Picard. This is a BLP, and we have to be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. And I also question these WP:SPAs who have suddenly shown up as well advocating on your behalf. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the concerns about implying that Picard is a racist, I understand the need for caution in framing statements about living individuals and adhering to the principles of WP:BLP. My intention is not to directly label Picard as such, but rather to reflect the wide-ranging criticism this incident has received, as documented by reliable sources.

On the question of sourcing, the Central News Agency (CNA) article in question is a state-owned news organization in Taiwan with a reputation for reliability, akin to Reuters or AFP. I believe it qualifies as a high-quality source under Misplaced Pages's guidelines. WP:NOENG non-english reliable sources are allowed in English wikipedia.

Regarding WP:SPAs, I understand that the sudden involvement of accounts focused on this topic might raise questions about their motivations and adherence to Misplaced Pages's principles. However, I want to clarify that I have not solicited or coordinated with any accounts to advocate on my behalf. Their participation seems to be driven by their independent interest in the issue, and their contributions should still be evaluated based on Misplaced Pages's content and sourcing guidelines. Lancer999 (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Our goal is to summarize, and one paragraph is sufficient to summarize this one time incident. Anything more would be undue. The CNA article only mentions "people in the academic and technological circles", that is vague and lacks attribution as to who these "people" are. I support the one paragraph proposal and oppose any mention of racism, as that claim is without merit. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for outlining your position clearly. I understand the importance of maintaining balance and avoiding undue weight in the article. Given this, I’m willing to support the consensus proposal:

"At the NeurIPS 2024 conference, Picard's keynote address drew criticism from a Chinese attendee due to Picard describing an example of improper use of AI by a Chinese university student, while her examples on other slides did not mention nationality. The slide also made the general remark that 'Most Chinese who I know are honest and morally upright.' Furong Huang, an associate professor at the University of Maryland, remarked on social media that her comments were 'not just inappropriate but also profoundly disheartening.' Picard issued a public apology, stating that mentioning nationality was unnecessary and caused 'unintended negative associations' that she deeply regretted." Lancer999 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That seems OK to me. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems OK to me as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for your valuable input and collaboration in reaching this consensus—I truly appreciate everyone's efforts and perspectives! Lancer999 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for all these discussions. I have followed the discussion from the very beginning and hope that my sudden jump-in at this stage is not inappropriate. I would just like to add that the expression “drew criticism from a Chinese attendee …,” while accurately describing what happened during the conference session, falls short of conveying the aftermath of the incident. I would suggest at least mentioning the angry response from the broader Chinese scholars’ and students’ community after the conference, with references mentioned by @Lancer999. YuanfangZ (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

— YuanfangZ (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I haven't yet had time to study the new comments, but I'll point out that MSN generally just reposts articles originally published by others, and the articles are prefixed with an indication at the beginning about where they came from. In this case, MSN says the article is from CNA, the Central News Agency of Taiwan (https://www.cna.com.tw/), which is the state-owned news agency of Taiwan. The article can also be found directly on the CNA website rather than looking at MSN. The CNA website link is https://www.cna.com.tw/news/aopl/202412160180.aspx. MSN links are temporary and tend to expire rapidly. The article seems to be written in Chinese, and no official English version of the article may be available. To reply to YuanfangZ's comment about jumping into the conversation, that is no problem at all and is very welcome on Misplaced Pages. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've been following the discussion and appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments and commitment to writing an accurate account of the events.

I think one paragraph devoted to the incident and the content of Rosalind Picard's slides with citations from the SCMP and CNA articles, Picard's two responses on NeurIPS, and her response on the MIT Media Lab site should suffice.

How about:

"NeurIPS 2024 Controversy

On December 13, 2024, Picard presented a talk at the 2024 NeurIPS Conference entitled, "How to optimize what matters most?", which included a slide quoting a Chinese student saying "Nobody at my school taught us morals or values" with a disclaimer, "NOTE: Most Chinese I know are honest and morally upright." This drew immediate criticism at the conference and on social media, prompting Picard to issue two apology notes on the official NeurIPS website and one apology note on the official MIT Media Lab website."

I think this captures the history of the events and touches upon the reaction from the community at large. Readers would be able to conduct their own research after reading this entry. The chronicles of life (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That seem OK to me, but I suggest to reduce the amount of detail about exactly how many places and where she posted an apology; I suggest just "... prompting Picard to publicly apologize." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I have added the section based on the consensus we reached. Please feel free to continue the discussion or make further edits as needed. Lancer999 (talk) 00:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Science and academia work group articles needing attention
• Biography articles needing attention
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Creationism articles
• Low-importance Creationism articles
• B-Class Intelligent design articles
• Low-importance Intelligent design articles
• Intelligent design articles
• WikiProject Creationism articles
• B-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• B-Class Women scientists articles
• Low-importance Women scientists articles
• WikiProject Women scientists articles
• Articles edited by connected contributors