3 ms·
I agree the "feminist inspiration" part is a confusing non-sequitur. I think you're missing what they're trying to say, though. I interpreted that section as "w
by bglazer 11y ago
I agree the "feminist inspiration" part is a confusing non-sequitur. I think you're missing what they're trying to say, though. I interpreted that section as "we're making our algorithms and data open so that everyone can be sure they aren't implicitly racist or sexist".
Suppose, for example, that a user repeatedly rejected edits for anyone with a noticeably feminine username. Wikimedia wants to be sure that their algorithms don't take this person's rejects to be valid data. Again, they don't really say how they'll do this, which makes the whole section rather confusing.
It's a valid concern, just presented awkwardly.
- HarryHirsch 11y agoAttempting to have processes that aren't implicity racist or sexist is a feminist practice?! If that doesn't qualify as an implicitly sexist statement I wouldn't know what would.
- Chris2048 11y agoI think poster is skeptical that this is the attempt [of feminism] - no need to sling mud.
- HarryHirsch 11y agoIt's the Wikimedia Foundation that is heavily invested in the more radical parts of feminism - they did sponsor the Ada Initiative, who in many people's opinion qualify as fringe. It was them who called open data feminist ideology. Is all of science suddenly feminist? After all it depends on exchange of data. That's plain barmy.
- flashman 11y agoYes, excising discrimination from processes is a feminist practice. That's not sexist, because feminism is about subtracting, not adding, discrimination based on gender.