Talk:Katie Bouman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Article milestones
April 12, 2019Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 9, 2019.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that imaging scientist Katie Bouman first learned of the Event Horizon Telescope in 2007, while still in high school, and joined the project six years later?

How important really was Katie Bouman in the black hole imaging? Wasn't there many people involved? Does she really deserve her own Wiki article?[edit]

WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

She said it herself on Facebook: "I'm so excited that we finally get to share what we have been working on for the past year! The image shown today is the combination of images produced by multiple methods. No one algorithm or person made this image, it required the amazing talent of a team of scientists from around the globe and years of hard work to develop the instrument, data processing, imaging methods, and analysis techniques that were necessary to pull off this seemingly impossible feat. It has been truly an honor, and I am so lucky to have had the opportunity to work with you all. — with Chi-kwan Chan, Shoko Koyama, Maciek Wielgus, Lindy Blackburn and Kazu Akiyama." WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Also see this New York Times article: should we nominate the page for speedy deletion? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you understand how science works. Every major achievement takes an enormous team of collaborators to carry out. The LIGO collaboration that led to the discovery of gravitational waves included more than 1,000 scientists at 90 institutions [1] If we used the criteria that in order to be noteworthy, a scientist would have to do all the work themselves, no scientists would have a Wikipedia page. Dr. Bouman's contribution was significant and the attention and praise she has received for those contributions puts her high in the ranks of a noteworthy scientist. Webmz (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not appreciate your extremely condescending opening sentence. I am in fact a scientist with more publications & citations than Katie (though she is younger, so it's not a fair comparison). You say "If we used the criteria that in order to be noteworthy, a scientist would have to do all the work themselves, no scientists would have a Wikipedia page" but no one said that a scientist has to "do all the work themselves" to be noteworthy for a Wikipedia page. There was ~200 authors on the paper but only 1 got a Wikipedia page because of it, and that was Katie. Was her work that important? You raise a good point that she has received a lot of attention and praise, but does she satisfy the criteria for "notable academics"? WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Two things stand out about Dr. Bouman - her work with the EHT, and her role as lead author of the CHIRP algorithm. (1) I believe we've already established that her contribution to the EHT project was no more than the many other people who worked on it, and who don't have their own Wikipedia pages. (2) As far as CHIRP goes: there is a computer scientist (Alex Krizhevsky who developed an algorithm/technique (AlexNet) that caused a significant advancement in AI/Machine Learning, since 2012! He has been cited over 30,000 times! But he does not have his own Wikipedia page. He's only mentioned in the Wikipedia page on AlexNet. So my vote is to delete Dr. Bouman's page, but possibly dedicate a section to her in the CHIRP page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshafique (talkcontribs) 04:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"While she led the development of an algorithm to take a picture of a black hole, an effort that was the subject of a TED Talk she gave in 2016, her colleagues said that technique was not ultimately used to create this particular image." WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talk) 01:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

If you think this page is speedyable, you don't have a good understanding of WP:SPEEDY criteria. I'm confident it would easily survive an WP:AfD as well. As to the exact role of her contributions to the image, that's already being discussed above and the article can be adjusted to reflect consensus on that as necessary. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I'd argue at this point it doesn't even matter (from Wikipedia point of view) what her contributions are. She easily passes WP:NOTABILITY Coderzombie (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to us what she did. She could be the subject of media coverage for standing in one place for 3 days, and if she passes the WP:GNG, the article won't be deleted. Natureium (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Standing in one place for 3 days sounds like a "single event", and in this article WP:1E it suggests that in cases like this the event would get a Wiki page, not the person itself. I am skeptical about whether or not Katie passes the notability criteria for an academic. She doesn't satisfy criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9: — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talkcontribs) 00:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The Event Horizon Telescope project is notable in itself, and has its own article, but all of the over 200 contributors are not inherently and automatically notable (Wikipedia:Notability is not inherited). The article presents no proof that she played an outsize role compared to the over 200 other contributors to the project. The notability criteria for scientists set out in WP:PROF are fairly high; she is a postdoc who is expected to become an assistant professor later this year. I don't find any notable publications in Google Scholar either, so it's clear that she is very far from passing WP:PROF. I believe this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E and that the appropriate solution is to have a section on the public reaction and coverage of the image of her in the article on the Event Horizon Telescope article, and a redirect from this title. Of course, it's entirely possible that she may become independently notable at some point in the future. --Tataral (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

You can't just unilaterally redirect a page that's being actively edited by many people. Natureium (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I support the suggestion to redirect the page for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaterWaterWaterLooLooLoo (talkcontribs) 00:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I mentioned the case of Alex Krizhevsky above. I think it's a good practice to follow when an academic gains notability due to some paper they wrote. I support the deletion of Dr. Bouman's page, redirecting to the CHIRP (algorithm) page, and perhaps dedicating a section to her. Fshafique (talk) 04:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not she should have Wikipedia article is a stupid discussion.

WP:NOTABILITY says that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."

This page satisfies all criteria. Pkin8541 (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not a "stupid discussion", it's a perfectly legitimate and normal discussion on Wikipedia, it's something editors here engage in every day, and that is a fundamental part of how Wikipedia operates. We routinely critically evaluate the notability of topics because we are an encyclopedia, and for scientists we have generally set the bar for notability high in the relevant guideline, WP:PROF.
While it's true that a subject can become notable only due to media coverage, there is an important exception: we generally don't create articles on people notable for only one event per WP:BLP1E/WP:1E, so media coverage doesn't automatically, necessarily and instantly mean that a subject is notable overnight. When the article was created the coverage of her was just a few hours old, and it didn't demonstrate that her scientific contribution justified singling her out among over 200 other contributors, so at that point it was particularly legitimate to ask questions about notability. Under WP:BLP1E/WP:1E the normal thing to do in that situation on Wikipedia would be to have a section on the public reception/reaction to the discovery in an article about the discovery itself, where the media coverage of the image of her could be mentioned. (Some of the more established scientists who were part of the project, people like Sera Markoff or its leader Sheperd S. Doeleman, were clearly independently notable, but that's another matter.)
The question of what her exact contribution was and whether it justified singling out her contribution among the contributions of around 350 contributors to the project[1], and how to present it, is a legitimate one – particularly when the original version of the article claimed, extremely inaccurately, that she "was responsible for the first visualisation of a black hole using the Event Horizon Telescope." (a claim that is strikingly reminiscent of the claim in the deleted Clarice Phelps article that she personally discovered an element which turned out not to be true). The whole thing apparently started when MIT posted a misleading tweet which they since deleted, and resulted in some rebukes from other researchers involved. For example, one of the researchers involved in the project, Sara Issaoun, said: "There are more of us. Katie's algorithm, despite the media's stance, was not used to produce this image. There were three algorithms used and combined to form the final image, and a team of 40 scientists part of that aspect of the project (including myself and more women)." She isn't mentioned in the fairly long list of the most senior people in the project either,[2] so by all accounts she didn't play such an outsize role as the article claimed. Chanda Prescod-Weinstein wrote that "Many of us agree that the way people reported Bouman’s contributions were overblown and in fact nobody seems to care that it made her relationship with her collaboration difficult".
It should be possible for Wikipedia editors to discuss notability and to critically evaluate claims (particularly when the early claims were quite WP:EXCEPTIONAL) based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on notability and verifiability without being shouted at. The discussion of her notability and role on the German Wikipedia (de:Diskussion:Katie Bouman) seems to have been much more civilized. An editor named Uwe Rohwedder nailed the issue with his comment: "It's not a matter of making her lesser because she is a woman, it's a matter of describing her scientific contribution in an accurate manner and not blindly be part of a (possible) media hype, only in order to be "on the right side"" [my translation].
Since last week there has been more coverage, so I'm less inclined to argue that she fails GNG now, although I'm still critical of the way WP:PROF is so easily ignored. What's the point of WP:PROF then? It's also somewhat problematic that her current GNG-derived notability is itself to a significant degree the result of a prematurely created Wikipedia article that essentially became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wikipedia's concept of notability and the specific guidelines on how notability is to be interpreted have been developed over nearly two decades, and are based on broad consensus. It doesn't help science, it certainly doesn't help us women, and it doesn't help Wikipedia as an encyclopedia if we can't evaluate new articles based on existing standards of notability and verifiability without being called "stupid." --Tataral (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Except notability was already evaluated at AfD. If you think the discussion was not closed correctly (note: this is different from saying you disagree with consensus reached in the discussion), you could I suppose request a deletion review. Or if you have an issue with the PROF standard you could take it to that talk page. But in any case an entry’s talk page is not the venue for challenging notability; there’s nothing anyone could do about it here. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was started before the AfD; I'm merely replying to an allegation that it was "stupid" or somehow not acceptable to discuss her notability in the first place, whether here or on AfD. An article's talk page is a perfectly normal venue for informally discussing the subject's notability and other matters related to the article, including the exact nature of her scientific contribution (which wasn't well understood by many people a week ago) and how to describe the public reaction to the whole thing. --Tataral (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Tataral I don't think the Clarice Phelps dig is really appropriate. CP's page originally said Phelps was the first African-American woman to contribute to the discovery of an element - which is true, as far as the author of a book on Superheavy elements who spoke to Phelps' and other discoverers of superheavy elements is concerned. The challenge with Phelps' page was finding an appropriate source. This page said Bouman contributed to a program that was used to create the first direct image of a black hole. I recognise you get frustrated by women scientists being on this site. Maybe there are other more productive ways you could edit?Jesswade88 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Tataral You fundamentally misunderstand the point of WP:PROF. It is not meant to increase the requirements for notability above WP:GNG. It is meant to be an alternative, for those who are important in their field, but aren't getting coverage in mass media. It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines. Conversely, failure to meet either the general notability guideline or other subject-specific notability guidelines is irrelevant if an academic is notable under this guideline. See also WP:ATHLETE which makes everyone who has ever set foot on a professional sports team for a single game worthy of an article etc. Wikipedia does not care about the argument that Bouman should not have gotten the coverage she did . We only care that she did in fact get it. The discussion that she shouldn't have gotten the coverage is perhaps a valid topic for some other reliable media navel gazing article - ironically if that article were written, it would only increase her notability for our purposes. ResultingConstant (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
The argument when the discussion was started was that this was a case of WP:BLP1E, it wasn't really an argument that she shouldn't have gotten the coverage in the first place, but that there wasn't sufficient coverage outside of the single event to justify a biography since she also didn't pass WP:PROF. There is also a major difference in terms of coverage of her between the situation now and the situation when the article was created and nominated for deletion, which is also why I said I'm less inclined to question her (GNG) notability at this point. Also, when I say Wikipedia editors should be able to discuss and evaluate claims based on sources without being called "stupid" or worse, it isn't just about notability, it's just as much about how we accurately describe her role. Many articles have now been written on the topic of the media coverage itself, e.g. the NYT article cited in the article, or this interesting article in Quillette [3] --Tataral (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Birthdate in infobox[edit]

I cannot seem to remove the "circa" from the Wikidata entry. Yoninah (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Circa is correct because news coverage has not given Bouman's date of birth, only her age. -- (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Two Did You Knows?![edit]

Is there precedence for one person getting 2 DYKs? I thought the policy is that each article is only allowed one? 🤔 The first is: ...that at the age of 29, imaging scientist Katie Bouman presented her algorithm used to create the first images of a black hole (pictured)? but then another says ... that imaging scientist Katie Bouman first learned of the Event Horizon Telescope in 2007, while still in high school, and joined the project six years later? And this is on 2 days. Trillfendi (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The first was pulled because it was false. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)