As someone who was a researcher at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) for 20 years, I find the internal review process for Google researchers deeply troubling. At PARC our research papers were reviewed for intellectual property only, with questions of the quality of research content left up to peer review. An internal, corporate review process runs the serious risk of acting as a mode of censorship above and beyond questions of IP. So regardless of chronology, I think this process raises serious questions about research integrity at Google, particularly for those like Timnit Gebru who are committed to critical thinking about technology.
The root controversy here is a pretty big factual discrepancy about the nature of the review process. Did she turn it in a day before the deadline instead of the normal two weeks, or did Google ghost her and her coauthors for two months? Was the review a normal one or a confidential memo?
The issue was not clear from the New York Times' coverage, which neglects to include the fact that Dean's email contests her account of the timing. If the company's version is true Google's actions are far easier to defend; if Dr. Gebru's version is true then the scandal is even worse.
It would be helpful to have some background on how the review process normally works.
Casey, for particularly egregious errors I think adding an [Update:...] note to the website hosted newsletters is important. I read the most recent editions out of order, and the mistake regarding WeChat censoring the Australian PM was particularly jarring.
This is classic silicon valley entitlement mentality. You don't give your employer an ultimatum—a list of demands, and expect them to reward you. It doesn't matter how good you are at what you do.
"Silencing marginalized voices like this" -laughable characterization coming from a pampered higly educated highly paid westerner. A girl in Sudan is marginalized, not you.
Guess it depends on what exactly one is writing. I have two sons a daughter-in-law, a grandson and granddaughter who are in IT. One son gets the whole picture, the others not yet, but we patiently wait. The biggest mistake these corporate partners make is to be in collusion with the US and other Governments, and with the ESG ethic - well known today to be connected with the World Economic Forum and their plot to rule humanity. some few claim the WEF thing is a conspiracy theory. Go to their website, analyze, and report. it is not a conspiracy theory but a coordinated plan by governments, corporations, institutions. Get real with facts then write.
As someone who was a researcher at Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) for 20 years, I find the internal review process for Google researchers deeply troubling. At PARC our research papers were reviewed for intellectual property only, with questions of the quality of research content left up to peer review. An internal, corporate review process runs the serious risk of acting as a mode of censorship above and beyond questions of IP. So regardless of chronology, I think this process raises serious questions about research integrity at Google, particularly for those like Timnit Gebru who are committed to critical thinking about technology.
The root controversy here is a pretty big factual discrepancy about the nature of the review process. Did she turn it in a day before the deadline instead of the normal two weeks, or did Google ghost her and her coauthors for two months? Was the review a normal one or a confidential memo?
The issue was not clear from the New York Times' coverage, which neglects to include the fact that Dean's email contests her account of the timing. If the company's version is true Google's actions are far easier to defend; if Dr. Gebru's version is true then the scandal is even worse.
It would be helpful to have some background on how the review process normally works.
Casey, for particularly egregious errors I think adding an [Update:...] note to the website hosted newsletters is important. I read the most recent editions out of order, and the mistake regarding WeChat censoring the Australian PM was particularly jarring.
This is classic silicon valley entitlement mentality. You don't give your employer an ultimatum—a list of demands, and expect them to reward you. It doesn't matter how good you are at what you do.
"Silencing marginalized voices like this" -laughable characterization coming from a pampered higly educated highly paid westerner. A girl in Sudan is marginalized, not you.
Guess it depends on what exactly one is writing. I have two sons a daughter-in-law, a grandson and granddaughter who are in IT. One son gets the whole picture, the others not yet, but we patiently wait. The biggest mistake these corporate partners make is to be in collusion with the US and other Governments, and with the ESG ethic - well known today to be connected with the World Economic Forum and their plot to rule humanity. some few claim the WEF thing is a conspiracy theory. Go to their website, analyze, and report. it is not a conspiracy theory but a coordinated plan by governments, corporations, institutions. Get real with facts then write.