Talk:Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies

About

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)

Notability

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)

James Hughes is the sole director now, which I think is only inferred on the page, however clearer on their newser site. Likewise, most references to their site is an old version which seems to not exist anymore. Their updated site changes much of the material on this page. EthicsScholar93 (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC) EthicsScholar93 3:58, 25 September 2020 (CET)

Fields of interest

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)

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)

Wrye Sententia

Are there any sources for the section on W.S. that has just been added.?DGG 01:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Good call. --Loremaster 20:05, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

bios

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)

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)

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)

I agree. We should work on completing the Fellows section. Can you help? --Loremaster 11:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

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)

I have updated the bio of Kris Notario, which left the IEET soon after 2012. Hank Pellissier, which was the managing director of IEET for many years (until 2016) is not mentioned, that has been updated. I have added, based on the IEET page, that Steven Umbrello is the new managing director (since 2016 according to his profile and institution CV) and added Marcello Rinesi as the CTO (no date). Anyone have a date on the latter? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 14:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

Notability

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)

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)

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)

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)

Notable members section

I created a notable members section, see [1], 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 [2]. 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)

"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)

"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)

What to do with these?

That's the curious thing about the folks at the Stanford conference. Some were from the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies, an offshoot of the World Transhumanist Association, which advocates the transformation of our species through drugs, "genetic engineering, information technology ... nanotechnology, machine intelligence, uploading, and space colonization." [...] These are weird people with weird ideas. But sometimes it takes a weirdo to see what's odd about what the rest of us call normal. [...] Maybe the cockeyed thinking of transhumanists is what allows them to see the illogic of the way we dope kids with caffeine while banning other stimulants. Maybe that's why they find it odd that we denounce steroids as cheating but ignore athletes who get Lasik or muscle-enhancing surgery. Maybe that's why they look back at the doubling of human life expectancy in the last century and wonder why we shouldn't try to double it again. To our hunter-gatherer ancestors, they figure, we already look posthuman. Meanwhile, they look at cyborg technology and see in it what's human.

— Slate.com national correspondent William Saletan

The Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies has become in my view, and possibly always was, a stealthy organization seeking to help legitimize the institutional positions and media reputations of key members of the World Transhumanist Organization, the better to increase membership and funding for that and other transhumanists organizations, as well as to mainstream the specific assertions of belief shared by those who identify as "transhumanists" in particular, under cover of a more serious discourse about emerging technoscientific change more generally. There is nothing wrong with such an agenda (even if I don't personally agree with it), although it seems to me that for the same reasons that the WTA website is not likely to achieve, in its explicit transhumanist form, either mainstream or academic respectability any time soon, neither would IEET were its apparently insistent connection to the WTA better known.

— Former IEET Human Rights Fellow Dale Carrico

These quotes are too long and just stuck at the bottom of the article without context. Not sure what to do with them. Darx9url (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

The following was also removed, but it might be worth picking through the sources to see if there is anything specifically descriptive of the organization:

The Institute, or its academic journal, has been mentioned by CNBC,[1] the New York Times,[2][3][4] BBC,[5] CoinDesk,[6] the Christian Science Monitor,[7] and Huffington Post,[8] the Atlantic,[9] io9,[10] Forbes,[11] the Boston Globe,[12] Scientific American,[13] Discover magazine,[14]The Wall Street Journal,[15] and Slate magazine[16]

Cheers! bd2412 T 21:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

As a result of the removal of these references and a COI check on me that came up negative, I removed the COI and cleanup template. I removed the following templates: (cleanup|reason=References need to be checked: some don't even mention the institute or only in-passing|date=December 2014)(COI|date=March 2015). I don't have a COI with the subject of this article. A possible COI was reviewed by a COI admin on my talk page, and the result was that I don't have a COI. Even if I did have a COI, the majority of my edits were removed. Waters.Justin (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

References

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)

Most of these links are quite old and do not reflect what appears to be their new site, missions etc. Not sure where to start. Can anyone begin updating the references here? EthicsScholar93 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2016

Add "index | Technoprogressive Wiki". ieet.org. Retrieved 23 November 2016. — God's Godzilla 22:40, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:26, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Programs

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)

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)

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)