Talk:Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

message: In the intial bio section there makes reference to the institute's connection to Humanity+. However, the reference given is old, and I cannot find this connection on their website. Does anyone have any idea when this connection was formally broken? Is it worth noting? The phrase and citation in question are "The IEET works with Humanity Plus (also founded and chaired by Bostrom and Hughes, and previously known as the World Transhumanist Association),[8]"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by EthicsScholar93 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: About

message: I think this is notable, because these two founders certainly are. I'm not sure how to handle the complex of multiple x-refs and overlapping articles. Best thing to do may be to reduce it and combine it (into this article, probably), but there are 3rd party sources, so i will remove the prod. DGG 05:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: But: what is the source for the list of fields of interest? Looking carefully at the links, they seem to be selected on the basis of having WP articles. DGG 22:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Although all the IEET Fellows at one point in time have written about the subjects in the Fields of interest section, I replaced this section with a Programs section by summarizing the information found on IEET's programs and activities page. --Loremaster 01:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fields of interest

message: Are there any sources for the section on W.S. that has just been added.?DGG 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See her bio here http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/pressroom/wrye_sententia.htm. If you think some of the material in the article is too contentious to be supported by a source associated with her, please specify and we'll see if it can be supported by more neutral sources. However, her (presumably) self-written biography should be an adequate source for most of it. Metamagician3000 02:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I've cut out the following material: She has guided the CCLE in sponsoring the National Science Foundation’s initiatives aimed at "Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance". In 2002, she provided comments to the President's Council on Bioethics on the topic of cognitive enhancement technologies and in October 2004 debated members of the Council on the Democratic Values of the US Declaration of Independence in relation to emergent enhancement biotechnologies and human freedom. She has written and spoken extensively on how novel technologies, particularly neurotechnology, will impact on human freedom. She has appeared frequently on radio and television, and has given invited lectures at numerous universities. I think that any material on those individuals who do not have articles here should be brief and should be sourced in a way that cannot be disputed. (Will put in an appropriate inline citation later; doing a couple of other things at once right now.) Metamagician3000 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. --Loremaster 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: If you assert a degree, please give the year and the subject so it can be checked. DGG 20:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrye Sententia

message: I have removed both of the bios on fellows of the center. this is not relevant material to an article on the subject. If they are notable, write articles about them. DGG (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your decision. Since the IEET primarily exist to promote and publicize the work of thinkers who examine the social implications of scientific and technological advance, it makes sense to know more about these fellows by including short bios without having to create articles about them. --Loremaster 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I recall, it was previously thought that some of these people were not notable enough to have articles of their own right, but it would be appropriate to say something brief about them here. In the cases of those with articles in their own right, there would be a cross-reference to those articles. Obviously that's not a satisfactory solution if the article is left in a half-baked form, but it still makes sense to me in the context of a well-developed article. Metamagician3000 07:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should work on completing the Fellows section. Can you help? --Loremaster 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Aside from Hughes, Pellissier is the only other staff member with a bio page. Th epage itself though is quite poor, perhaps we can work on cleaning that up? Likewise, the other members, like Notaro (who's gone now) as well as Umbrello and Rinesi do not have bio pages, can any of you dig up info on them and form a page? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I have updated the page of Hank Pellissier. I have removed most, if not all, of the primary source citation and removed anything I could not confirm with secondary sources. Funding details for some of his activities are references with publically available tax information. I have added information on the amount of his work based on archives for the various platforms he contributed to. Anybody have a photo to attach? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: bios

message: There doesn't appear to be any. The only two things that might be editorially-reviewed RSes (Slate and Reason) mention it only in passing. If this is noteworthy, the evidence needs to be clear in the article - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I added more references.  Most of them only mention the Institute or its journal in passing, but this is typical for opinions given by think tank scholars.  Please see :Category:Think_tanks_based_in_the_United_States to compare this article with other articles on think tanks.  These references are relevant for showing the Institute's level of media and pubic exposure, even if the mention is only in passing. Waters.Justin (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Inclusion of trivial in-passing mentions does not help with establishing notability one bit. A few more "meaty" references will do nicely, but this is just clutter. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, it's the sort of thing that unfortunately reads like articles where a non-notable institution has "puffed up" its entry. Such arguments regularly fail at AFD, for example - the press mentions need to be actually about the subject - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "Notable members" sections are also quite useless. If a member has documented activities that are relevant to the institute, that could and should be in the article (and the member could then be wikilinked). If all that can be said is that "John Doe is a member", then it just is name-dropping and notability is not inherited, so it doesn't improve the article in any measurable way. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "Notable members" sections aren't, in the general case, actually useful information, and often come across like trying to make notability arguments in the article text rather than on the talk page. Is this organisation notable enough to rate a mention in each and every of those listed BLPs, for instance? I strongly suspect not - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: I created a notable members section, see , and a user deleted it due to Wikipedia's prohibition against directories.  Creating a notable members section is not a directory and is an accepted Wikipedia practice if the listed members are actually notable.  Wikipedia even has a consensus accepted template for building a notable members section. See Template:Member and Template:Mem.  Another think tank, the Cato Institute, has a very large notable members section with even subsections. See Cato_Institute#Notable_Cato_experts.  And a search of Wikipedia using the phrase "Notable members" gives hundreds of articles with "Notable members" sections. See search .
Why should this article not be allowed to create a "Notable members" section if it uses the Wikipedia accepted template or follows the same format at the Cato Institute? Waters.Justin (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Notable members" sections are also quite useless. If a member has documented activities that are relevant to the institute, that could and should be in the article (and the member could then be wikilinked). If all that can be said is that "John Doe is a member", then it just is name-dropping and notability is not inherited, so it doesn't improve the article in any measurable way. --Randykitty (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

text: "Notable members" sections aren't, in the general case, actually useful information, and often come across like trying to make notability arguments in the article text rather than on the talk page. Is this organisation notable enough to rate a mention in each and every of those listed BLPs, for instance? I strongly suspect not - David Gerard (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable members section

message: I have restored the cleanup tag. Just as an example, the current reference 6, is only an in-passing mention of the institute and does not support the statement made in the preceding phrase. --Randykitty (talk) 12:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Add 
— God's Godzilla 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an external link to the home page, and that is sufficient. Visitors can find their way to the Technoprogressive Wiki from there. Altamel (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 22 November 2016 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. 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/20141231001104/http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/04/16/personhood-beyond-the-human/ to http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2013/04/16/personhood-beyond-the-human/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not sure if this is still true "Programs In 2006, the IEET launched the following activities...'. This is more than a decade ago, can we confirm that they are still the ongoing programs? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I suggest contacting IEET's Chief Technology Officer since he will be more than happy to answer such questions. --Loremaster (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ill look into it. I'll try to cross-reference an announcement they made regarding this with their current site and I can contact the CTO EthicsScholar93 (talk) 15:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Programs