4 ms·

Some of the ways that GitHub sexism study misconstrued GitHub norms

9 points by exolymph 11y ago

AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
> 6) True “insiders” would usually not be making pull requests as they would have commit access to the repo. Whenever I've used Github professionally, I've been encouraged to make commits to a separate branch and then make a pull request when it's time to merge the code into testing or master branch. Even though I have commit access, I still make pull requests routinely. Am I doing it wrong?
- ryanmcbride 11y ago
  Nope. I've always committed to a branch and merged with master later. Committing straight to master is a disaster waiting to happen.
zck 11y ago
I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are reasonable things to look at; some aren't. >1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more PRs by men. I would say it’s more like 100-200x more men on GitHub then women. So they're comparing data (which may be erroneous, but is actual data), with a feeling: "I would say". And the data types are even different! The study compared the ratio of pull requests between genders; this person quibbles over the ratio of users between genders. >2) But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company. So this study is possibly comparing mostly professional women with mostly hobbyist men. Perhaps. It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. >4) In my experience a lot of people on GH with feminine sounding names are actually men from Eastern Europe (Sasha, Nicola, etc) or India (Sandy, Sunny, etc). This is a complaint against a methodology that the study didn't use. From the study (https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf): >...we took a different approach – linking GitHub accounts with social media profiles where the user has self-reported gender. You can say this wasn't a big enough ratio (they identified 35% of users' genders this way), or that people will report incorrect data, but if you're talking about "feminine sounding names", you're not addressing this article. Point five has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps there's an unstated point there. Point seven is easily testable; points eight and nine are testable, but not as easily.
- Chris2048 11y ago
  > It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. You are right that they didn't use names to determine gender though, which makes this a little suspect - did The author read the study? It does mean, though, that the sample is further focused on developers who are on G+, who use the same email address, and who identify their gender. This would potentially allow for even more confounding factor if not investigated. Whether or not a sample is representative is not an unimportant question, and with conclusions like this, need to be considered a little more...
  - vannevar 11y ago
    Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just speculation is not valid criticism.
    - Chris2048 11y ago
      "Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.
      - 11y ago

9 points by exolymph 11y ago

> 6) True “insiders” would usually not be making pull requests as they would have commit access to the repo. Whenever I've used Github professionally, I've been encouraged to make commits to a separate branch and then make a pull request when it's time to merge the code into testing or master branch. Even though I have commit access, I still make pull requests routinely. Am I doing it wrong?

ryanmcbride 11y ago
Nope. I've always committed to a branch and merged with master later. Committing straight to master is a disaster waiting to happen.

zck 11y ago

I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are reasonable things to look at; some aren't. >1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more PRs by men. I would say it’s more like 100-200x more men on GitHub then women. So they're comparing data (which may be erroneous, but is actual data), with a feeling: "I would say". And the data types are even different! The study compared the ratio of pull requests between genders; this person quibbles over the ratio of users between genders. >2) But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium tech company. So this study is possibly comparing mostly professional women with mostly hobbyist men. Perhaps. It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. >4) In my experience a lot of people on GH with feminine sounding names are actually men from Eastern Europe (Sasha, Nicola, etc) or India (Sandy, Sunny, etc). This is a complaint against a methodology that the study didn't use. From the study (https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf): >...we took a different approach – linking GitHub accounts with social media profiles where the user has self-reported gender. You can say this wasn't a big enough ratio (they identified 35% of users' genders this way), or that people will report incorrect data, but if you're talking about "feminine sounding names", you're not addressing this article. Point five has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps there's an unstated point there. Point seven is easily testable; points eight and nine are testable, but not as easily.

Chris2048 11y ago
> It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't based on data. Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. You are right that they didn't use names to determine gender though, which makes this a little suspect - did The author read the study? It does mean, though, that the sample is further focused on developers who are on G+, who use the same email address, and who identify their gender. This would potentially allow for even more confounding factor if not investigated. Whether or not a sample is representative is not an unimportant question, and with conclusions like this, need to be considered a little more...
- vannevar 11y ago
  Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on them. This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just speculation is not valid criticism.
  - Chris2048 11y ago
    "Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term: http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof vs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof > There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this. > making up your own facts Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one not presented as fact, but explicitly as opinion.
    - 11y ago