Talk:Kate Crawford

broken links

this External link is broken 20/03/2011 * Triple J interview with Kate Crawford there are other links at ABC radio for "Kate Crawford" - trying to find replacement and for inline links http://search.abc.net.au/search/search.cgi?collection=abcall_meta&form=advanced&query=%22kate+crawford%22 Kathodonnell (talk) 04:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

sources for Manning Clark award

"In 2006 she won the individual category of the Manning Clark House National Cultural Awards for her book Adult Themes (released through Pan-MacMillan)." looking for a source for this sentence. so far I've tried googling it, NSW State Library search, the Manning Clark website. there's a broken link on Crawford's website to http://www.manningclark.org.au/awards/cultural06/mediaDec08.html & her 'about' page mentions: "On Dec 8th, 2006, Adult Themes won the individual category of the Manning Clark House National Cultural Awards. The judges wrote that "Adult Themes significantly raises the standards of debate on the crucial issue of inter-generational relations with grace, humour, engaging prose and rigorous scholarship. It is a landmark contribution to Australian cultural life."" http://www.katecrawford.net/ttn/page/about Kathodonnell (talk) 08:51, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kate Crawford. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.australia2020.gov.au/docs/2020_participants_alphabetical.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kate Crawford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130901122320/http://darkwork.net/index.php?fuseaction=about to http://www.darkwork.net/index.php?fuseaction=about
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120315151619/http://www.capa.edu.au/roadshows/2009/communicatingresearch to http://www.capa.edu.au/roadshows/2009/communicatingresearch
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527221132/http://manningclark.org.au/content/previous-years-winners to http://manningclark.org.au/content/previous-years-winners

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Kate Crawford’s age

I was at uni with Kate Crawford. First year was 1991. She was 15? I didn’t realise she was that much of a prodigy! 202.7.250.13 (talk) 07:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Note an edit in View History revising birth year from 1976 to 1972.

On this 23 April 2002 publication date she said she was age 28 (https://web.archive.org/web/20230715015933/https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/rare-fusion-for-a-new-generation-20020423-gdf7w5.html) which means a birthdate between 24 April 1973 and 23 April 1974.

On this 27 May 2004 publication date she 'confesses' to being age 31 (https://web.archive.org/web/20040812193059/http://www.onlineopinion.com.au:80/view.asp?article=2263) which means a birthdate between 28 May 1972 and 27 May 1973.

If honest at the time then taken together that gives a birthdate between 24 April 1973 and 27 May 1973 (meaning age 50 on this day in 2023).

Yet in the same publication on 20 August 2021 she claims she is only age 44 (https://web.archive.org/web/20210820070837/https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-lot-of-people-are-sleepwalking-into-it-the-expert-raising-concerns-over-ai-20210714-p589qh.html) which requires a birthdate between 21 August 1976 and 20 August 1977.

She earlier claimed to MoMA that she was born in 1976 (https://web.archive.org/web/20200306040834/https://www.moma.org/artists/131890).

Unfortunate to lie to institutions contrary to your own public record but that appears to be the circumstance. Slatemarie (talk) 03:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The National Library of Australia has her birthdate as 1974. This should be considered more reliable than the MOMA date, since her origin is Australia. 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:1872:293:53BB:3899 (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

https://catalogue.nla.gov.au/catalog?q=%22Crawford%2C+Kate%2C+1974-%22&search_field=author 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:1872:293:53BB:3899 (talk) 11:03, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Ethics of facial image reuse

I again reverted this inclusion of a self-published arxiv essay that critiques one of Crawford's art installations. That's not a WP:RS, and the other two references later added don't talk about this artwork at all and are irrelevant. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I just pulled up the Google cache of the Medium post added, and it only references the existence of the arxiv essay; it isn't an independent critique itself. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that arXiv is an acceptable reference for the Wikipedia, which even has a template for that purpose. Have a look through the references on this page and ask yourself which of these are peer-reviewed. 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:684A:1A3F:7D0A:B5DD (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Please see WP:ARXIV. This is a self-published personal essay and not itself a reliable source for criticism. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I am removing the arXiv citation and keeping the Disena reference. Btw, the majority of sources for this page are not peer-reviewed. Why don't you have a go at trying to improve that? It is quite factual to state that the exhibition was criticised. You are questioning the significance of the criticism, however this was significant enough to result in discussion in peer-reviewed publications. I cite the one I consider to be the most useful source.

Arguments centered on WP:OTHERCONTENT aren't convincing. I fully support ensuring fair and critical coverage of subjects of articles, but a random self-published essay doesn't rise to WP:RS, even if it is mentioned in passing in another random Medium post. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Further, per WP:MEDIUM we should not rely on blog posts on that platform as secondary sources for a living person. I think that reference should be removed as well. [Note: if this art installation is indeed problematic it shouldn't be hard to fine a notable reliable source indicating this. If we can't then perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned]. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Read reference 45 carefully. On page 7 the authors clearly describe the problematic nature of the Training Humans exhibition. The authors of this article are experts on good practices for the responsible use of AI in art. Note that Training Humans was not itself peer-reviewed. 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:684A:1A3F:7D0A:B5DD (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

exhibit

The first sentence on the art exhibit is "The first major exhibition of the images used to train AI systems to recognize human faces and emotions." This doesn't look right. Kdammers (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and the section contains several unsourced statements. 'Major' is a slippery word here and should be removed. 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:684A:1A3F:7D0A:B5DD (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It's either the first or it isn't. If it is, provide evidence to that effect. 2A00:23C8:6784:4701:684A:1A3F:7D0A:B5DD (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)