Skip to content
Longterm Wiki
Index
Fact·f_n1IL7VXouL·Fact

Algorithmic Justice League — publication: Gender Shades study (2018) by Buolamwini and Gebru demonstrated intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial facial recognition from IBM, Microsoft, and Face++. Dark-skinned women had highest error rates; light-skinned men had lowest. Over 4,900 citations on Semantic Scholar.

Verdictunverifiable95%
2 checks · 1 src · 4/30/2026

2 → unverifiable

Our claim

entire record
Subject
Algorithmic Justice League
Value
Gender Shades study (2018) by Buolamwini and Gebru demonstrated intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial facial recognition from IBM, Microsoft, and Face++. Dark-skinned women had highest error rates; light-skinned men had lowest. Over 4,900 citations on Semantic Scholar.
As Of
March 2026
Notes
Citation count as of March 2026. IBM issued a public response acknowledging the research. Study shaped industry practice, policy agendas, and academic research.

Source evidence

1 src · 2 checks
unverifiable95%primaryHaiku 4.5 · 4/30/2026

NoteWhile the source URL is correct and matches the claim's subject (the Gender Shades study), the source text provided contains only a JavaScript error page with no substantive content. The page does not display any information about the study's findings, citation count, authors, publication year, or impact. Without access to the actual page content, none of the specific claims (intersectional accuracy disparities, error rates by demographic group, 4,900+ citations as of March 2026, IBM response, or industry impact) can be verified or contradicted. The claim's temporal specificity ('as of 2026-03') also cannot be verified against a page that is currently inaccessible.

unverifiable95%primaryHaiku 3 · 3/30/2026

NoteThe provided source text is a JavaScript verification page, not the actual Semantic Scholar paper content. It contains no information about the Gender Shades study, the researchers (Buolamwini and Gebru), the findings regarding intersectional accuracy disparities, the specific error rates for different demographic groups, or the citation count. While the URL appears to point to the correct paper, the actual source content provided does not address any aspect of the claim. Without access to the actual paper or metadata, the claim cannot be verified against the source.

Case № f_n1IL7VXouLFiled 4/30/2026Confidence 95%