This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Artificial Intelligence, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Artificial intelligence on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Artificial IntelligenceWikipedia:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceTemplate:WikiProject Artificial IntelligenceArtificial Intelligence articles
Public reception?
Re: public reception, notable open-source, scientific, startup and investor opinions are missing in the current text.
(came here from the NPOV noticeboard) The short answer is no, support and opposition don't have to be given the same weight. We should give them the same weight that reliable sources give them (per
WP:BALANCE, Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources). Unfortunately, following the rules may lead in practice to a lack of balance in the article if one side is more vocal, but over time this becomes less of a problem as we can use better sources rather than just news articles.
I've noticed that some content in the article lacks sources or is based only on primary sources. I've tagged it, if it's not fixed within a reasonable time it can be removed.
Alaexis¿question?08:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)reply
agreed. also from npovn.
not sure about the ai policy institute, if its unbiased sourcing.
there is also a conspicuous lack of sourcing from local newspapers.
I think it was there in the original bill as "similar general capability", but I can't find any mention in the latest amended bill.
Astudent (
talk)
07:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)reply
We should not be using primary sourcing for Wikipedia. I think the most egregious one is the proceeding records (source 1), where the assembly committee is discussing the bill.