Difference between revisions of "Talk:Discrimination in Algorithms"
(D) |
(d) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The author clearly defines the topic about algorithms and some of its negative effects in the introduction paragraph. It is good to see the direction laid out pretty clearly in | The author clearly defines the topic about algorithms and some of its negative effects in the introduction paragraph. It is good to see the direction laid out pretty clearly in | ||
| − | the introduction, but there is a bit of minor issue that the opinion comes a bit fast with not too much references or supports, and it may be suggested that the author could make the argument on the introduction paragraph a bit more | + | the introduction, but there is a bit of minor issue that the opinion comes a bit fast with not too much references or supports, and it may be suggested that the author could make the argument on the introduction paragraph a bit more objective, as it is somehow making an argument for how algorithms are rather than explaining the issue. |
The body paragraphs are organized well, diving the bias into categories like creation bias, analysis bias and evaluation bias. However perhaps each subtitle contains too little information and sometimes even just one sentence, and I believe it maybe better to add more content or just trying to integrate them into one. As for now even the points are valid it still looks very hollow and the author needs to make them more informative. | The body paragraphs are organized well, diving the bias into categories like creation bias, analysis bias and evaluation bias. However perhaps each subtitle contains too little information and sometimes even just one sentence, and I believe it maybe better to add more content or just trying to integrate them into one. As for now even the points are valid it still looks very hollow and the author needs to make them more informative. | ||
| − | I feel the Impact sub paragraph is great with supporting evidences stated, it may just need a little fixation on how we choose the sentence to make the paragraph more | + | I feel the Impact sub paragraph is great with supporting evidences stated, it may just need a little fixation on how we choose the sentence to make the paragraph more objective, perhaps not starting with "Algorithms are ..." because it seems to be pushing an argument rather than providing information for the readers to judge themselves. |
It is a good draft, it may just need more content and trying to make the sentences as subjective as possible and beside from these two issues I do not find anything that is too off the topics and general wiki requirements. | It is a good draft, it may just need more content and trying to make the sentences as subjective as possible and beside from these two issues I do not find anything that is too off the topics and general wiki requirements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For the four requirements: Length: satisfied. Structures are good, but I believe more references are needed, we can not just use one reference for all the points made. Issues | ||
| + | of racism and sexisms are clearly stated. It needs to be more objective for the general requirements (Objective reporting) | ||
Revision as of 15:58, 3 February 2023
The author clearly defines the topic about algorithms and some of its negative effects in the introduction paragraph. It is good to see the direction laid out pretty clearly in the introduction, but there is a bit of minor issue that the opinion comes a bit fast with not too much references or supports, and it may be suggested that the author could make the argument on the introduction paragraph a bit more objective, as it is somehow making an argument for how algorithms are rather than explaining the issue.
The body paragraphs are organized well, diving the bias into categories like creation bias, analysis bias and evaluation bias. However perhaps each subtitle contains too little information and sometimes even just one sentence, and I believe it maybe better to add more content or just trying to integrate them into one. As for now even the points are valid it still looks very hollow and the author needs to make them more informative.
I feel the Impact sub paragraph is great with supporting evidences stated, it may just need a little fixation on how we choose the sentence to make the paragraph more objective, perhaps not starting with "Algorithms are ..." because it seems to be pushing an argument rather than providing information for the readers to judge themselves.
It is a good draft, it may just need more content and trying to make the sentences as subjective as possible and beside from these two issues I do not find anything that is too off the topics and general wiki requirements.
For the four requirements: Length: satisfied. Structures are good, but I believe more references are needed, we can not just use one reference for all the points made. Issues of racism and sexisms are clearly stated. It needs to be more objective for the general requirements (Objective reporting)
