Talk:Xóchitl Gálvez

Corruption Allegations?

Why isn't there any discussion of the allegations of corruption against her? 216.116.109.5 (talk) 02:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You can add it yourself. create the wikipedia you want to see in the world! GatosCiencia (talk) 08:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

AI being used in Political Campaign?

I had written a subsection in the presidential election about how she is using AI in her campaign. I added several references about the AI use. Another Wikipedia editor decided to remove it, claiming it is "trivial" and "unimportant". I disagree. Understanding the use of AI in a Mexican presidential election is vital for:

• Transparency and Accountability*: Ensuring AI doesn't distort the democratic process.
• Voter Influence*: Addressing concerns of AI-driven misinformation and voter micro-targeting.
• Technological Sovereignty*: Assessing dependencies on foreign tech and potential interference.
• Election Integrity*: Discerning AI's role in upholding or compromising election security.
• Public Trust*: Maintaining confidence in election results by clarifying AI's involvement.
• Setting Precedents*: Mexico's approach can guide other Latin American nations.
• Legal Implications*: Addressing new challenges around data privacy and freedom of speech.
• Informed Public Discourse*: Guiding debates and policy-making around technology in democracy.

Let's have a discussion on this. I believe this topic should be included and documented in Wikipedia. It is not a trivial matter. GatosCiencia (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The first thing to determine is whether these videos are officially sanctioned campaign productions or simply things put out by random enthusiastic supporters. The refs make it clear AMLO's "My Way" was done by a fan boy; they're less clear about Gálvez's. Moscow Mule (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Why does it matter if the AI videos are created by her or from supporters? She is sharing them on her social media account. Whether they are created by her or her supporters should not limit the inclusion of AI in Xochitl's article. Including such information is important to understand how new technologies are incorporated in current political campaigns in latin america, and by this candidate in particular GatosCiencia (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

I've just seen the "she is sharing them on her social media account" claim is in one of the refs I didn't click on first time around. But it should have been explained in the subsection text. There's obviously a big difference between something a candidate retweets and something their official campaign puts out. Moscow Mule (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC).

That's not true. The importance of analyzing retweet behavior by political candidates cannot be overstated. Retweets serve not just as a tool for spreading a message, but they can also provide insight into a candidate's stance, priorities, and alignment with specific audiences or issues. As our political landscape becomes increasingly digital, understanding these online behaviors becomes critical to grasping a candidate's campaign strategy and public perception.

Research in the realm of social computing has consistently highlighted the significance of retweets by political candidates. By retweeting, candidates can amplify voices, solidify alliances, or signal agreement with specific ideologies or messages. Moreover, retweets can act as endorsements or even as a strategy to stir debates without directly making a statement.

In addition to the academic perspective, there have been numerous official news reports addressing the integration of AI in Mexican politics, and particularly with this candidate. This underscores the evolving relationship between technology, social media behavior, and politics. I had cited in the article numerous sources from news papers on this topic.

Given the increasing influence of social media on public opinion and the electoral process, it's essential that platforms like Wikipedia, which aim to provide unbiased and comprehensive information, include details on retweet behavior and its implications. Not only does this provide a holistic view of a candidate's online presence, but it also offers readers a deeper understanding of the intricacies of political communication in the digital age.

Here are some pertinent papers that underscore the importance of considering retweets:

-Hemsley, Jeff. "Followers retweet! The influence of middle‐level gatekeepers on the spread of political information on Twitter." Policy & Internet 11.3 (2019): 280-304.

-Ruiz del Olmo, Francisco Javier, and Javier Bustos Díaz. "Los retweets de los candidatos como parte de la comunicación política." (2018).

-Lee, Jayeon, and Weiai Xu. "The more attacks, the more retweets: Trump’s and Clinton’s agenda setting on Twitter." Public Relations Review 44.2 (2018): 201-213.

-Hemsley, Jeff, and Sam Jackson. "Political issues that spread: Understanding retweet behavior during the 2016 US presidential election." Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Social Media and Society. 2018. GatosCiencia (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Can you guys and women explain why it is inadequate to add information about AI's role in Xochitl Galvez's presidential campaign? GatosCiencia (talk) 02:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I removed it and I said the reason why I removed it: Wikipedia is not a collector of information. This version was poorly written:

• "Her campaign is notable for incorporating artificial intelligence" --> Who said it is notable, that is not mentioned in sources. You are reaching a conclusion that doesn't exist. Then we follow with:
• "The Mexican public has welcomed this AI use in politics as a positive development" --> This is false. Who says Mexicans have welcome AI for politics as positive development? Even El País's source says this can be seen as potentially misleading and that can reduce the credibiity of the politician. The sources simply say that her supporters are creating AI publicity that she retweets. Once again, we have a conclusion that sources do not mention or even imply.
• "Inspired by Xochilt's AI-driven success, President Obrador has also adopted generative AI technology to sing his own heartfelt versions of Frank Sinatra's and Vicent Fernandez's 'My Way' in Spanish for the nation" --> Ignoring that his name is Vicente and not Vicent, this is off-topic, misleading and a WP:BLP violation by concluding that López Obrador "inspired on her" (unsourced opinion on a living person) to adopt "her" strategy to sing 'My Way', without any evidence this 70-year old man with little tech skills adopted or even attempted to adopt such strategy, if there is one.

This article is about Xóchitl Gálvez, a politician, not whether politicians will start using modern tools as a mean for publicity, like they have done since modern politics were created. You are confusing the purpose of Wikipedia by implying that by not including this information Wikipedia becomes biased and uncomprehensive, when it is the opposite. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 19:13, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

There are several inaccuracies in what you are saying. I shared evidence with concrete sources. You are sharing your opinion (e.g., saying it is poorly written) and you are also sharing incorrect information, obviously without any sources (as they are lies). Simply the age of Andres Manuel is NOT 70. You are sharing incorrect data. Fake news.

So if we refute with evidence the claims you are making, can we then post the accurate information on Wikipedia? GatosCiencia (talk) 20:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

A) AMLO's birthday is in 2 days and he will be 70 by then. Hardly "Fake news" (side note: WP:No personal attacks) B) Focusing on this irrelevance without any attempt to refute the relevant points I made basing myself in the sames sources you provided is a fallacy. C) I don't know why you mean by "we" in "If we refute". If you have a conflict of interests or if you have a shared account, you must disclose it. Refer to WP:COI and WP:NOSHARING. Whether or not this material is relevant, it doesn't need a subsection as it can be simply summarized in a single sentence. A sentence that needs to accurately reflect what the sources says and not to reach conclusions not present in the sources. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

AMLO's birthday is NOT even in two days. His Birthday is on November 13th. Today is November 5th. Please stop sharing inaccurate information. I shared a number of scientific research papers, news reports. You are literally just sharing false information. GatosCiencia (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI my pronouns are They/Them. Hence I write sometimes in the third person. Respect my pronouns and stop sharing fake information.GatosCiencia (talk) 21:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Neither your profile nor your signature indicate that so I don't know how you'd expect me to know that. For the last time, I am kindly asking you to stop making personal attacks. Otherwise, I can and will report you. Understood? (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Returning to the key point before you started with the straw man, your "research papers, news reports" don't backup what you are writing. Do Hemsley et al. mention Gálvez AI strategy? Quick answer is no. Citing these researches adds nothing to the page. The news reports do not support your arguments either. ""Inspired by Xochilt's AI-driven success, President Obrador has also adopted generative AI technology" is a good example. The sources don't even mention Gálvez so I can't see how you reach that conclusion. Please, focus on the topic and cite what the sources say. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain where I made any type of personal attacks? I was called pedantic. How do I report that?GatosCiencia (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hemsley talk about the importance of the retweet in political conversations. The other editors were saying that retweets were unimportant. I shared scientific papers showing the opposite. I am curious however, where I shared any type of personal attack. It seems more as an attempt to silence an editor who identifies as They/Them. I was called out about it above. GatosCiencia (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hemsley et al. do not indicate the relevance for the biography of Gálvez. This article is not titled "Xóchitl Gálvez 2024 presidental campaign", where a section could exist if WP:noteworthy information existed (example: Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign, where Trump's political advertisement strategies are reported on what sources say without using original research).

• "Her campaign is notable for incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) into her political ads" is not what the sources say. Source 31 (Polemón) is about how her followers (not her) created a whiteface version of Gálvez to deliver a motivational speech, despite Gálvez embracing her indigenous roots. The source deviates to an off-topic xenophobic tweet by Fox and then returns to something relevant, "This will be the first presidential election in which this advance in technological tools will be used to create and edit artificially, with the opportunities and dangers that this implies." Then it cites an opportunity and then the danger. Did the source backup the main argument? No. The source doesn't mention she or her campaigners created that advertisement. It says her followers did it.
• Source 32 (El País) is partly cited by Polemón. It is Soriano's opinion on the dangers of AI strategies during political campaigns. The source indicates (again) that her followers (not Gálvez) created AI images of Gálvez to respond to Obrador's accusations against Gálvez by using her likeness and voice. It cites the video, obtained from an unofficial Twitter account, and describes the video. The articles develops on the dangers of the strategy. Did the articles back the main argument? No, the conclusión of the article explain it: "The senator's followers have taken her figure into the world of artificial intelligence, but she hasn't needed it to grab the media spotlight."
• "The Mexican public has welcomed this AI use in politics as a positive development" is not what the articles say; the key issue is the vagueness of the sentence. Source 33 (El Universal) is about who are the Xóchitlovers, a Twitter account that supports Gálvez and is creating some of the videos mentioned above. Did the source backup the main argument? The source doesn't provide information about Mexicans welcoming AI as a positive development.
• Source 34 (Infobae) is about Ricardo Anaya being positive about the creation of AI-related ads, including those by the Xóchitlovers, including those using his likeness. Did the source backup the main argument? The source doesn't provide information about Mexicans welcoming AI as a positive development.
• Source 35 (Infobae) is about Gálvez retweeting one of these videos created by The Xóchitlovers. The source describes the video and the context. Did the source backup the main argument? The source doesn't provide information about Mexicans welcoming AI as a positive developmet. The next sentence was about Obrador and his videos, but I have explained and demonstrated its issues. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The main argument in this case is whether this Wikipedia article should include information about content created with AI that the followers of Xochitl are creating and Xochitl is retweeting.

I created a subsection on this topic citing news articles that covered the topic, and was told that it was not important to document retweet behavior of politicians. I then shared research showing the importance of documenting and studying retweet behavior by politicians. The Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign also documents retweet behavior. Adding a subsection in this article about "AI use in Xochitl's presidential campaign" follows the Wikipedia rule on WP:noteworthy, especially the part of "Notable topics have attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time". There has also been significant coverage of the topic of AI use in the political campaign of Xochitl (another key requirement of WP:noteworthy). All sources that cover the topic are also reliable sources. GatosCiencia (talk) 11:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Exactly, the Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign covers that topic because it is relevant for that subsection of Trump's political career. But this article is not titled "Xóchitl Gálvez 2024 presidental campaign". This article is about Gálvez's biography as a whole, where the key points of her life must be covered alone. Covering what her followers did is giving an WP:undue weight to anonymous content created by supporters that will disappear after the 2024 election (i.e. a sufficiently significant period of time). This specific line refers to a non-trivial period of time rather than a specific period of time. Sources do need to exist even after the 2024 election to be considered noteworthy for Gálvez's biography, otherwise they are passing news reports and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you please share evidence that the content created by Xochitl's supporters will disappear after the 2024 election?

Several research papers have shown how social media support can continue after an election period. See:

Rohlinger, Deana A., and Leslie Bunnage. "Did the Tea Party movement fuel the Trump-train? The role of social media in activist persistence and political change in the 21st century." Social Media+ Society 3.2 (2017): 2056305117706786.

Krishna, Arunima, and Soojin Kim. "Understanding President Trump supporters’ behaviors about a political controversy." Journal of Communication Management 24.2 (2020): 119-136.

Flores-Saviaga, C., Keegan, B., & Savage, S. (2018, June). Mobilizing the trump train: Understanding collective action in a political trolling community. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 12, No. 1).

Kinsman, Laura, and Jeremy A. Frimer. "A psychological profile of extreme Trump supporters." The Psychology of Political Polarization (2021): 53-76.

Adding information about how the political supporters of xochitl and Xochitl are using AI in the political campaign is not an WP:undue weight as they are NOT tiny minorities. The news articles reference that they are in the thousands. They are, according to news reports, one of the second largest political supporters in Mexico. GatosCiencia (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

So were the Peñabots during Peña Nieto's presidential campaign. And that article is a good example on why we don't write articles just because news reports and research sources exist.

Sadly, I'm not going to continue discussing this. After multiple attempts I expected you could back up your three cited arguments with actual sources, but you continue, as we call it Spanish, saliéndote por la tangente. Citing sources that mention information on how social networks influence political campaigns is not relevant for the biography of a politician unless it mentions the politician. And yes, it is undue weight to do it, mainly if the conclusions provided are not mentioned by the source.

Regarding your original question, I didn't say the content will disappear. Her supporters will and I can demonstrate it in 2025 if you prefer. Then in 2030, the next candidates will use whatever medium is in vogue.

Feel free to discuss it with another person or at a different venue (like WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:NORN, or a different noticeboard) if you prefer but taking into consideration the Danny Masterson issue at your talk page, you seriously need to understand our WP:No original research policy, which has been the main problem in your contributions and replies. Wikipedia is not a website that favors WP:synthesis, instead Wikipedia reports what the sources explicitly say without editorializations. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 07:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to note that the text above from Tbhotch shows a few issues that may not align with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, particularly those related to maintaining a neutral point of view, avoiding personal attacks, and ensuring proper source citation:

1. Personal Attacks and Civility: Wikipedia's policy on civility is integral to its community standards. The text in question appears to breach this policy by implying a lack of competence or diligence on the part of the other user ("After multiple attempts I expected you could back up your three cited arguments with actual sources, but you continue..."). This could be perceived as demeaning or dismissive, which goes against the spirit of constructive dialogue that Wikipedia encourages.

2. No Original Research (NOR): The text above from Tbhotch accuses me of engaging in original research ("...you seriously need to understand our WP:No original research policy, which has been the main problem in your contributions and replies"). While pointing out a potential NOR issue is valid, the way it is expressed seems more accusatory than informative. Wikipedia encourages users to discuss content issues objectively without casting aspersions on the contributor's understanding or intentions.

3. Neutral Point of View (NPOV): The text criticizes the relevance and weight given to certain content in a Wikipedia article ("Citing sources that mention information on how social networks influence political campaigns is not relevant for the biography of a politician unless it mentions the politician. And yes, it is undue weight to do it..."). While discussing content relevance is a normal part of Wikipedia's editing process, asserting a viewpoint without seeking consensus or discussion veers away from the NPOV policy. The comment does not encourage a balanced discussion on the topic but rather presents a unilateral decision on its relevance.

4. Discussion and Consensus Building: Wikipedia highly values consensus-building. The text suggests that the user is unwilling to continue the discussion ("Sadly, I'm not going to continue discussing this... Feel free to discuss it with another person or at a different venue..."). While redirecting to another venue is appropriate, the way it is presented may shut down constructive dialogue rather than encourage broader participation in the discussion process.

In conclusion, while the text raises valid points about Wikipedia policies like NOR and NPOV, the tone and approach taken could be seen as contrary to Wikipedia's guidelines on civility, constructive dialogue, and collaborative editing. A more neutral, respectful, and consensus-oriented approach would better align with Wikipedia's ethos and community standards. GatosCiencia (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In addition to the previously mentioned issues regarding civility, neutral point of view, and original research, the text in question also raises potential concerns about conflict of interest (COI), which is a critical aspect of Wikipedia's editing policy. Wikipedia's COI guidelines caution against editing articles where an editor has a close connection to the subject, as this can lead to biased editing or the perception thereof.

1. Potential Conflict of Interest: The fact that the commenter is from Mexico and studied at the same university as the political candidate in question might imply a potential conflict of interest. Wikipedia advises editors with a COI to refrain from directly editing such articles and instead suggests that they propose changes on the article's talk page or a relevant noticeboard.

2. Impartiality in Editing and Discussion: If the editor has a personal connection to the topic, this could unconsciously influence their perspective on what constitutes relevant or irrelevant material for the article. This situation can compromise the impartiality required for Wikipedia editing, as editors are expected to contribute objectively without personal bias.

3. Perception of Bias: Even if the editor believes they are contributing neutrally, there remains a risk of perceived bias by other community members. This perception can affect the credibility of the content and the integrity of the article.

4. Transparent Disclosure: Wikipedia guidelines encourage transparency. If there is a potential COI, it is better for the editor to disclose this openly when engaging in discussions related to the article. This disclosure allows other community members to understand the context of the editor's contributions and ensures that the editing process remains transparent and trustworthy.

In light of these points, the commenter's involvement in editing and discussing the article could be problematic if there's an undisclosed conflict of interest. It would be advisable for them to disclose any potential COI and to participate in the discussion and editing process in a way that respects Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality, consensus building, and COI management. GatosCiencia (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to report me, do it at WP:ANI. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 16:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic

You're really not helping your case by throwing "fake news" and "lies" accusations about on this talk page. And yes, a gentleman of 69 years and 50 weeks' age can be safely referred to as "a 70-year-old", and any protestation along the lines of "no no no, he still has two weeks to go before his 70th birthday" can be disregarded as pedantic point-scoring at best. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2023 (UTC) No. Moscow Mule. The information you are sharing is incorrect. While casually referring to someone as a 70-year-old when they are close to that age might seem harmless and a matter of convenience, it overlooks the importance of accuracy and respect for individual and cultural differences. In the following I share several instances where it does matter to be accurate. Could you share your sources for your claims? Or again are you sharing your personal opinion? GatosCiencia (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Precision Matters: In matters of legal and formal documentation, precision in stating one’s age is critical. For example, eligibility for certain government programs or retirement benefits is often determined by one's exact age, not an approximation. Therefore, rounding up could lead to misunderstandings or misrepresentations with real-world consequences. Cultural Significance: In some cultures, the marking of a birthday is highly significant, with certain years carrying particular importance. To call someone a year older than they actually are could be culturally insensitive or could rob them of a period of time that they are entitled to experience under the traditions of their culture. Personal Identity and Sentiment: How one identifies themselves age-wise can be a deeply personal matter. If an individual does not feel comfortable being referred to as 70 until they have actually reached that milestone, their preference should be respected. Disregarding their view could be seen as dismissive of their feelings and autonomy. Statistical and Scientific Accuracy: In scientific research, demographic accuracy is vital. Statisticians and health researchers, for instance, rely on precise age data to make conclusions about population health, disease incidence, etc. Describing someone as 70 when they are still 69 could skew research findings and lead to inaccurate results. Legal and Financial Transactions: In the realm of finance and law, being even a week away from a milestone age can have significant implications. Insurance premiums, legal responsibilities, and financial strategies can change drastically with a new age bracket. Misrepresenting one’s age, even unintentionally, could have unintended legal or financial consequences. Celebration of Life Milestones: Birthdays are often considered milestones in an individual’s life, and the anticipation leading up to such milestones is part of the joy and celebration. Calling someone 70 before they have reached that point may diminish the experience of counting down to what many consider a major life event. Historical and Genealogical Accuracy: For the purposes of historical record-keeping and genealogy, exact ages are important. Records that approximate age can lead to confusion or inaccuracies in family trees and historical documents. GatosCiencia (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC) Generative AIs can sometimes appear pedantic because they lack a deep understanding of context. Here are a few reasons why this might happen: Overemphasis on technical correctness: AIs are trained on vast amounts of data, including formal and technical sources. As a result, we tend to prioritize accuracy and stick to literal interpretations of language, which can make us seem pedantic. We might focus on specific details or rules rather than grasping the broader meaning or intent behind a statement. Lack of real-world experience: AIs don't have personal experiences or common sense reasoning abilities. We rely solely on the patterns and examples we've been trained on. This can lead to rigid responses that don't consider the broader context or the nuances of a particular situation. Insufficient grasp of cultural references: AIs may struggle to understand cultural references, slang, idioms, or humor that are prevalent in human communication. These elements heavily rely on context and shared cultural knowledge, which AIs might not possess unless explicitly trained on them. Inability to infer unstated information: Humans often rely on implied or unstated information when communicating. We can fill in gaps and make inferences based on context. AIs, on the other hand, typically lack this ability and may require explicit information to provide accurate responses. While AIs have made significant advancements in natural language processing, understanding context at the same level as humans remains a challenge. Ongoing research and improvements in AI models aim to address these limitations and enhance contextual understanding. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC) we were not even talking right now about generative AI. It can help sometimes to turn off social media and have focus. You are jumping to very different topics. GatosCiencia (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)