Talk:Aaron Sloman

Autobiographical Content

I suspect that this article does not conform to Wikipedia's standards regarding autobiographies. See Wikipedia:Autobiography. The article was started by the author and is about himself. Most of the content is unverifyable except by the author and autobiographer. Gerryfarm, 26 December 2006.

Response by author

I am not sure exactly how I am supposed to respond, and I shall happily accept the decision of whoever is responsible for maintaining wikipedia standards.

This is what happened: I often find wikipedia useful, and when I stumbled across links to things I had been involved in over many years, and one or two references to myself I thought it might be useful if I inserted a short biographical web page which filled in some gaps, copying the format from other biographical pages I had seen. I also had in mind that I am 70 years old and have been involved in the development of AI/Cognitive science especially in the UK since about 1971, -- and recognized by being elected Fellow first of AAAI then AISB, then ECCAI. I was also aware that because of my age I might not be around to do it very much longer, and that nobody else knew some of the biographical details.

After I inserted some minimal content I left it until I later stumbled across the page again and found that someone had complained that it was unclear and short on references. So I added more material with references, intending to come back and add more. However I've been very busy with other things and had not looked at this (or signed in to my wikipedia account) for a long time, when I found the link to this talk page after google took me back here.

I don't really know what to do next, as although I have contributed to a number of wikipedia pages (some anonymously, before I registered) I am not an expert contributor.

I should say that I have fairly deliberately decided to use my home web page (at the University of Birmingham UK) as my main publication medium, on the grounds that that will maximise accessibility to people who do not subscribe to journals or buy academic books. It also gets me critical comment from people in other disciplines who would not read the journals most likely to publish my work. (However I do also publish in journals!)

Also I have no intention of getting any publisher of paper books to publish the information about my background, even though that form of publication might make the information more authoritative, though for most of it there is probably no remaining evidence: so my memories are the only source.

There are published references to my work (e.g. quite a lot of citations in Margaret Boden's new two volume history of cognitive science, but very few people will have access to those (especially when the book is so expensive!).

Feel free to delete the page if it is deemed to violate policy guidelines. Alternatively if there are specific things I should do that I have not done, please let me know (if appropriate email: A.Sloman@cs.bham.ac.uk).

I don't know whether some people get students or colleagues to fill in their details but I felt I could do it more easily myself. (I confess I had not read all the guidelines before doing that.)

I think wikipedia is a great resource (though not always totally reliable: there are several entries to which I have been meaning to add critical comments and/or corrections when I find time!) and I would not wish to do anything that harms or discredits it.

I am happy to accept whatever decision the wikipedia management may wish to take.

Aaron

www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs 19:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

progress with cleanup

Just to say that I did some work cleaning the article up - shortening sentences, adding links and a little information. I think that this may be a valuable article but was articulating what I understand to be Wikipedia policy. I am a new Wikipedian and may be incorrect - this may bring the article to the attention of a more authoritative and experienced Wikipedian. Gerryfarm 11:34 GMT, 29 December 2006.

Thanks -- and a suggestion

Thanks for your feedback and for improving the article.

I am also a new Wikpedian, so we may both have to leave this to others to decide.

Thinking about the issues led me to wonder whether anyone has ever considered a way of making exceptions to the rule excluding autobiographical articles. In July I was at the Fellows Symposium of AAAI were several people who had been involved in AI since the 1950s were invited to reminisce. Many produced anecdotes that were extremely interesting and worth recording and since most of them are of course now somewhat elderly if they don't get their information written down in the next few years it may be too late, and some important history will be lost forever. None of the people I had in mind would dream of writing publishable autobiographies, and nobody else will write the stuff. They probably will not spontaneously write it on their web pages, and even if they do, not all departments keep web pages of retired or departed members going indefinitely. So wikipedia could do a service by positively inviting people who have achieved some recognition to post autobiographical notes recording things that may be of interest to others in a central place where they can easily be found.

Of course this would require there to be some criterion for deciding whether the authors have appropriate stature, and whether the articles are of sufficient substance or interest to be worth keeping. I don't know how that could be resolved, but it may suffice to allow people to decide for themselves initially, on the understanding that as with all wiki articles others may decide that they are inappropriate and should be removed. (Or put in a special sin-bin for self-promoters)

I supposed I should try to find time to investigate whether there is a mechanism for making such proposals, but right now I am swamped with other commitments.

Thanks for your help.

Aaron www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~axs 22:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep and improve

I have undone an unsigned removal of the suggestion above (Gerryfarm) that this article be removed. I think that only the author of that suggestion should remove (or, better, retract) it.

However, this is a valuable article. The basic facts justifying an entry are easily verifiable (eg AAAI Fellow). The article (still) needs attention, but deletion would be a mistake. Michael Fourman 03:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed my earlier suggestion. Gerryfarm 21:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this needs clean-up, he seems like an interesting person. The external links section is of course completely wrong. This sources should be turned into footnotes. Merzul (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to Aaron Sloman aka Harry Sloaman in Minsky interview

This is something that might be added to the article about Aaron Sloman. Also putting the misspelled name here in case someone is googling for it, or some ai is reasoning about it.

In an interview from 1998, Marvin Minsky mentioned that Aaron Sloman was one of the few people working with common sense problems in Artificial Intelligence, and expressed his respect and admiration. But in the interview, Aaron Sloman's name was mis-transcribed as Harry Sloaman, from the University of Edinburgh.

Sabbatini: Why there are no computers already working with common sense knowledge ?

Minsky: There are very few people working with common sense problems in Artificial Intelligence. I know of no more than five people, so probably there are about ten of them out there. Who are these people ? There’s John McCarthy, at Stanford University, who was the first to formalize common sense using logics. He has a very interesting web page. Then, there is Harry Sloaman, from the University of Edinburgh, who’s probably the best philosopher in the world working on Artificial Intelligence, with the exception of Daniel Dennett, but he knows more about computers. Then there’s me, of course. Another person working on a strong common-sense project is Douglas Lenat, who directs the CYC project in Austin. Finally, Douglas Hofstadter, who wrote many books about the mind, artificial intelligence, etc., is working on similar problems.

We talk only to each other and no one else is interested. There is something wrong with computer sciences.

Xardox (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)