Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stochastic parrot

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Any adjustments to the article title and content are left to the usual editorial processes. RL0919 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic parrot[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

We do not have Wikipedia articles on academic papers. This is an article on an academic paper MASQUERADING as an article on a new AI term. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper. It is also not true that we don't have Wikipedia articles on academic papers (see Category:Academic journal articles). GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Keep I have reviewed the sources and reconsidered my position, and decided to vote keep after seeing the term be used outside of On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, Thanks! I was unaware of that Category:Academic_journal_articles. (I just counted, excluding the links to editors' user pages and this AfD discussion, there are 35 articles. For comparison, the Category:Lists_of_academic_journals contains 81 LISTS.)

Is there a Notability standard for Academic journal articles (and Magazine articles)? or do they fall under WP:NBOOK? ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 23:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know you should probably ask at the teahouse. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenBootWizard276: "I cannot find any examples of the term being used outside of the academic paper." Did you look? I find only 8,600 Ghits for the paper, but 67,600 Ghits for the term. See my !vote below. Clearly the term is in common use. It's why I moved the article to its current location in the first place. Skyerise (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots" Firstly, the term that originated in this highly influential paper is now widely used in WP:RS discussion of LLMs, as a simple web search will show. Secondly, the paper itself is the subhject of widespread commentary (see search cited). Thirdly, it's not just the paper; the sudden exit under disputed circumstances from Google of two of the paper's authors is an affair in itself. All of the above have been extensively reported and commented on in mainstream media. Putting all these together, this clearly passes WP:GNG. Finally; the last point in the deletion proposal is specious; we do indeed have articles on sufficiently notable academic papers; why, we even have Category:Computer science papers to put this one in. [edited in reponse to comment below from GoldenBootWizard276] — The Anome (talk) 07:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: see comment below. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be notable if there were an article on the academic paper the term originated from, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?", instead of the article on the term itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 07:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would be very happy to have the article moved to that title, which was the original title of the article. I've changed my response above to reflect that. — The Anome (talk) 09:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at current title per WP:COMMONNAME. "Stochastic parrots": 67,600 results, "On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big?": 8,620 results. The term is already (!) in wide use is places that don't refer to the paper. Skyerise (talk) 10:34, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: The number of search results is not an establishment of notability. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenBootWizard276: I don't consider the notability in question. My observation is intended to establish the WP:COMMONNAME by which to title the article. The use of the term is more widespread than mentions of the article. You've already conceded that the paper is notable (though without changing your !vote). I've demonstrated that the term is independently notable, so you should change your !vote to either 'keep' or 'keep and move'. Skyerise (talk) 15:52, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: Most of the examples I have found of the term being used outside of academic papers are about the paper itself. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if most of the uses of the term are in machine learning papers, and even if most of those uses cite the article, that doesn't negate the notability of the term. I've included further reading examples in legal, literary, and other fields. Skyerise (talk) 17:03, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per discussion and notable sourcing. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nuance - Keep short description of TERM - Delete paper whose only notability comes from authors leaving Google, NOT content of the paper itself as being seen as notable or new in the field, of which the former info is sufficiently covered in the articles on its authors.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 18:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: (Personal attack removed) There are multiple mainstream news sources specifically about the paper. Both the term and the paper are notable. The term derives from the paper, and the paper title can only be redirected to one place, not to three different author pages! The idea that the source in which a term originated can be excised from the article about the term is ridiculous. I can no longer take you seriously. Have a nice day. Skyerise (talk) 18:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Care to name which "multiple mainstream sources" you are claiming exist? We currently have two: Maybe you should read their titles: MIT: "We read the paper that forced Timnit Gebru out of Google. Here’s what it says." and Verge: "Timnit Gebru’s actual paper may explain why Google ejected her".

You still have no sources which say that this paper is notable for its research. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 19:42, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: Eleven listed sources (and four further reading examples which use the term outside of machine-learning literature) and you WP:CHERRYPICK two – to make an argument which seems to change each time you comment? Stop wasting our time. Are you still arguing that the paper is more notable than the term, or vice versa? I can't tell. Skyerise (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the TERM is notable (and the origin of the term can of course be used) but that the PAPER is NOT, and therefore THE **FOCUS** OF THE ARTICLE SHOULD BE THE TERM. But the article was created in the name of the PAPER, and you have argued that BOTH are notable INDEPENDENTLY, which is what I have been disagreeing with. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: Great, then there is no problem! The focus of the article is already the term, it's already at the proper title, and this is not redirects for discussion. You've effectively withdrawn your nomination, and you should do so formally below. Skyerise (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much article content about the PAPER; YOU haven't removed that, (and I feel that you'd revert me if I did) and The Anome seems to feel that the PAPER is notable, and should therefore be a big part of the article. We can discuss the notability of the PAPER here also, so that if The Anome starts another article like they started this one (or undoes your move on this one) we won't have to re-do this same discussion. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317: This is not the venue for a content discussion (See Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup). Only the main subject of an article need be notable, and you've conceded that it (the term) is notable. The rest of article content merely has to be supported by reliable sources. Skyerise (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Avatar317 and Skyerise: I think both of you should consider toning it down a notch; typing in ALL CAPS on the INTERNET tends to come across as SCREAMING at the other person, and there is basically no situation in which "Are you nuts?" is an acceptable comment to direct at someone else in a deletion discussion :( jp×g 00:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Avatar317: I agree with Skyerise on this except that the term should be a redirect to the paper, not the other way around. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)~~ See comment above GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not quite a WP:SNOWBALL, but I propose this AfD be closed as keep and the title issue be resolved using requested moves if any editor feels strongly enough about changing the title to start one. Skyerise (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue since I added the notability tag has always been that this article is TWO articles; it started as user:The Anome created it as an article about the PAPER, and you HALF-morphed it into a paper about the TERM. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 21:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: Again, someone else created the article. I researched it and came to the conclusion (as you seem to have), that the term is more notable and in wider use, and so moved the article and started to work on refocusing the article. However, the paper has to be discussed in the article; it has gotten many academic responses. And even if the paper isn't notable, which I dispute, there is no requirement that a redirected title be notable in and of itself. A redirect is to help people find information on a topic, not an assertion of notability. In any case, if you no longer think the article should be deleted, you should withdraw your nomination. This is not the venue to resolve article content issues, only whether to delete the article. Article content issues are resolved on the article talk page. Skyerise (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you essentially created a totally new article on a different topic ON TOP OF an already existing article. That's what this deletion discussion is about. ---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Avatar317: That's a content issue. Do you still believe the article should be deleted? That's the only outcome you can get here. You don't get to use a deletion discussion to bludgeon other editors on content issues. You discuss it on the article talk page with the other involved editors and come to a WP:CONSENSUS for change. Skyerise (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: per GoldenBootWizard276 's suggestion, I asked at the Teahouse here:WP:Teahouse#Is_there_a_Notability_standard_for_academic_journal_articles_(or,_which_notability_standard_should_apply)? so maybe others will come here and give their input.---Avatar317 ^(talk) 22:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful. That could be viewed as running afoul of WP:CANVASS, especially since you've conceded that the term is notable and have acknowledged that you are now trying to influence article content decisions. Skyerise (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to interject myself into an ongoing AfD beef, but isn't "influence article content decisions" the primary thing that Wikipedia editors are on this website to do? jp×g 00:06, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Emily M. Bender or Timnit Gebru. There are eleven listed sources, but these do not look to me like WP:SIGCOV that define a separately notable topic from that of the authors individually. Ref 1 seems to be a passing mention: the main quote is "A useful way of thinking about the limitations of data in machine learning then is in terms of a stochastic parrot, a phrase introduced by Bender et al. (2021)" but this is in a section that cites about a dozen papers. I am not sure about ref 2; Towards AI is a Medium-based website that calls itself a "content platform". I don't think that they are prima facie unreliable (I read a few articles and none of them seem to be overtly wrong about anything) but it's not clear whether this counts as SIGCOV. Ref 4 is the paper itself, and I have no idea what ref 5 is (it appears to be a link to a Google Scholar search results page for Bender). 6 is a dictionary definition of "stochastic" unrelated to the subject. 7, 8, and 9 seem borderline (they are mostly about Gebru's firing, and mention the paper in conjunction with this event as it seems to be the major factor). 10 is a YouTube video of one of the authors presenting the paper, which seems to be basically the same thing as refs 3 and 4, and 11 is mostly about GPT-4 and mentions the paper as one of several criticisms. I hate to use the term "refbombing", because it imputes ill intent to the writer of an article, and I don't think that is the case here (the purpose of citations is to reference the content of an article, not to serve as ammunition for 'keep' !votes) but I think that this is a case where the volume of references makes it seem like there is a lot more going on than there actually is. jp×g 00:03, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, maybe move if really necessary although I think the popularity of the term makes it more notable than the paper title. // Gargaj (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above discussion. The consensus appears to be not to delete, but what to do next is up in the air. I am leaning keep because it is becoming a common phrase. Bearian (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.