Talk:Mark Rober

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mark Rober article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

California Low‑importance

	California portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

YouTube Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics 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.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube

Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject YouTube To-do:

A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : see list.
Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles
Cleanup : See cleanup listing
Maintain : This WikiProject
Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles
Other :
- Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages
- Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers

Disability

Mark Rober is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Autism

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture 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.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

New Picture.

I am donating a new picture of Mark Rober for his Wikipedia page. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Rober_September_2024.jpg LKP2024 (talk) 02:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @LKP2024! I assume you are the photographer and have happily licensed the image freely? If not you will have to verify the ownership through c:Commons:Volunteer Response Team (an email). Otherwise, I like the new photo but prefer the existing one as it has the workshop in the background. Commander Keane (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am with you. I prefer the other background yet at the same time that one is five years older. Guess we can wait on the response. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am and have freely licensed it.--LKP2024 (talk) 06:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added the image. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a photographer and have a new picture which addresses the suggestions above (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mark_Rober-_Close.png). It is a closeup of him with the workshop in the background. Can you use it? Newhcrossaint (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I've changed the article to use this newer photo. Thanks. The relevant Commons category is here, for future reference: Commons:Category:Mark Rober. Grayfell (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth (and middle initial)

Rober's date of birth is March 11, 1980. This was proven by the four sources on the page, two from Rober's Twitter (here and here) - allowed per WP:DOB and WP:ABOUTSELF, one from WIRED (here - which had already been used for a long while on this article, and is allowed per WP:RSPSS, and one from Forbes (here) - allowed per WP:FORBES.

I am really not sure why these are continuing to be removed, as they are perfectly reliable per Wikipedia's guidelines.

Additionally, I added reference to Rober's middle initial, B., and this was removed as well.

This initial had been, again, referenced correctly, and on the article for a while before it was removed. I was simply adding back well-sourced information.

The first sentence should read:

Mark B. Rober (born March 11, 1980) is...

The Early life and education section should read:

Mark B. Rober was born on March 11, 1980, and was raised...

I see no benefit in continuing to remove well-sourced, factual information. Strugglehouse (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually see no benefit in adding it. My contention remains the same as it did here in this discussion for both the middle initial and DOB. Note that it was not I who initially removed the DOB, but user @AirshipJungleman29: (pinged for feedback). For the middle initial, I still contend that WP:NCBIO applies. We have a few sources that state a middle initial but is it widely used or commonly known? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have to "prove" Rober's date of birth by collating information from various sources together, it is clear that Rober has not indicated they want it to be public. WP:BLP clearly states that the article "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy"; scraping the internet to join together four bits of information is not doing that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPSELFPUB. It's not scraping the internet. They're either obviously reliable sources or self published sources. They are allowed. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of these actually states his birthday. What you're doing is WP:SYNTH based on what you're interpreting from these sources. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They do, though. The two Twitter sources both state March 11th, and the WIRED and Forbes sources state his age. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to this. I really don't see any problem with using Twitter sources for this kind of thing, per WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:DOB, and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

However, if people are really against it, we should at least include "1980 or 1981 (age 44–45)", as this is shown by the two reliable sources. Strugglehouse (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note consensus here seems to be that we should not at this point in time be including his date of birth. There is not really a consensus to include his middle initial, which then defaults back to "not include". Primefac (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement url for dead one in cite

I can't edit the article because for some reason editing is currently restricted to admins, but I found a live replacement url for the dead url in what is currently Citation 14. I know that cite has an archive backup of the original, but I think it's prefarable to have a live one too. The original url is:

https://www.wired.com/news/archive/2013-08/23/mark-rober-costumes/

The new, live url is:

https://www.wired.com/story/mark-rober-costumes/

If someone can add it, please do so. Thanks, and Happy New Year. Nightscream (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. Primefac (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Primefac Could you change the page protection from indefinite to temporary? Just so no one has to request that it be unprotected. ―Panamitsu (talk) 04:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This unnecessary edit war over the DOB will just resume the day after it becomes unprotected. I am watching the page and when the discussion above reaches a consensus I will be more than happy to drop protection back down. Primefac (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, what are you doing? When two parties edit war, you don't full protect the darn page to stop all editing in anticipation of them continuing! You wait until either party bungles WP:3RR and dole out blocks based on that, or if it's slow-moving, you dole out blocks. If it really, really was that bad, you need to take the goofy goobers to ANI to deal with it. Barnt Toust 02:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for more popular pages this approach is completely awesome, because it helps stop a volatile, potentially hard to control war. But less popular, niche pages like this? I ain't thinking so, because smaller wars on less popular pages just aren't hard to extinguish with standard warn, warn hard, block; it just keeps page protection while discussions for niche subjects just die out like this: As it's been over a week since the parties' last comments, I request you to unprotect this page.

Again, I may be misreading policy as I've only seen full protection to stop edit warring implemented on pages that are highly, highly trafficked where blocking all warring parties would be like playing whac-a-mole, and never once before have I seen this level of hammer-down on mundane, niche articles like this where a few folks disagree over privacy and synth. I just think this is rather extreme. Barnt Toust 02:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A simple "looks like there's consensus to me" would have sufficed. You'll note that my initial reply was on 1 January and comments on the discussion above didn't even start until the day after. And yes, I wanted to give enough time for all parties involved to reply. Primefac (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yeah. If that came off as rough, lo siento. I think there is a dead discussion, not really consensus developed. Barnt Toust 13:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2025

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tesla Autopilot Test Controversy (2025)

In March 2025, Mark Rober faced significant backlash following the release of a YouTube video testing Tesla's Autopilot system. The video depicted a Tesla Model Y crashing into a fake wall painted to resemble a road, contrasting its performance with a lidar-equipped vehicle that avoided the obstacle. Rober claimed in the video and a subsequent X post that Autopilot disengaged 17 frames before the collision, despite his feet not touching the brake or gas pedals. However, the post and video sparked controversy when Tesla supporters and online users accused Rober of misrepresenting Tesla's technology, noting that he used Autopilot rather than the more advanced Full Self-Driving (FSD) system, which was not engaged during the test. Critics, including some on X, argued that the test was misleading, biased, or potentially sponsored by Luminar, a lidar technology company, and called for Rober to retract the video, issue an apology, and provide raw footage for transparency. The incident fueled broader debates about the safety and reliability of Tesla's camera-based autonomous driving systems versus lidar-based alternatives, drawing attention to ongoing discussions in the tech community about autonomous vehicle technology. Terkinstein (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now but you are welcome to get consensus. As written, this is not from a neutral point of view and also contains too many details for something that just happened in the last few days. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for sources, I see a few tabloids and some clickbait (a lot of reddish sources), but very little which is reliable. The Verge did a story about this, and it doesn't seem significant enough to include in this article. At least, not yet. It appears to be a WP:FART, but that may change with more and better sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assessment is spot on. If there turns out to be more and there is more than tabloid reporting it, then it could be worth revisiting. Until then, its likely click bait based on Tesla (anything related to you know who is going to be covered by the media, at least in the short term). --CNMall41 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]