4 ms·

> He sourced all of his claims He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually

> He sourced all of his claims He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually provide [3] substantive evidence [5,7,8,6,5,4,3] Also, I can "source all my claims" and vehemently defend the Nazis. "Source your claims" is the middle school grammar teacher equivalent of "provide substantive evidence and use careful language when writing publicly on sensitive issues". In other words, kinda juvenile. FWIW I don't think people should be fired for political beliefs, but the actual memo wasn't "well-sourced" and was the author was clearly trolling. I've heard the whole "google is a utopia" thing, but I can't imagine posting something like that in a work context even in the most liberal office environment... > and himself has a Ph.D in Biology IMO this makes the whole thing much more embarrassing for the author [9]. -- [1] If by "cite" you mean provide evidence. [2] It is perfectly OK to use bracketed numbers for footnotes as well as citations, of course. But footnotes are not citations. [3] If you're going to appeal to authority, at least actually appeal to an authority other than "additional ramblings. [4-8] Don't dare disagree! [9] Especially copious footnotes presented in a way that implies they're citations. [10] There's some PG essay about this.

Cookingboy 9y ago
>He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually provide [3] substantive evidence [5,7,8,6,5,4,3] What are you talking about? He absolutely linked to all his citations, the fake news Gizmodo stripped out all of his citations/links and graphs when they published the memo. Here is the full memo with all the links preserved: https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/
- aidenn0 9y ago
  Considering it was the body text of the memo, and someone probably just copy/pasted it into an e-mail, I think what Gizmodo published was less fake than to call it "fake news." There was a memo. Gizmodo thought they had the full text. They actually only had the body text. That's pretty darn close.
  - Khaine 9y ago
    That is a blatant lie. Gizmodo explicitly stated that they stripped references and diagrams: "Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted." [1] [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-...
    - aidenn0 9y ago
      Okay, so your argument is that it's "fake news" because Gizmodo nefariously stripped hyperlinks while openly telling everybody about it? Or was that note added later? I still think it's clearly attributable to ignorance rather than malice because presenting the text of a document is not uncommon to do; the fact that it changed the tone of the memo is unfortunate, but doesn't make the news "fake"
- throwawayjava 9y ago
  I read the full memo; the use of these things [1] is exactly as I describe. > He absolutely linked to all his citations Aside from non-sourced footnotes, the "sources" are for the most part hyperlinks to wikipedia articles, news articles, and position papers. These aren't sources. Source substantiate claims. A list of people who agree with you is not a "source". Also, the ACTUAL CLAIM -- that the set of uncontroversial differences between the sexes can explain gender disparity in tech -- IS entirely unsourced.

Cookingboy 9y ago

>He didn't actually cite anything, though [1]. He used a bunch of bracketed numbers [2] to look scientistic, but didn't actually provide [3] substantive evidence [5,7,8,6,5,4,3] What are you talking about? He absolutely linked to all his citations, the fake news Gizmodo stripped out all of his citations/links and graphs when they published the memo. Here is the full memo with all the links preserved: https://diversitymemo.com/ https://diversitymemo.com/

aidenn0 9y ago
Considering it was the body text of the memo, and someone probably just copy/pasted it into an e-mail, I think what Gizmodo published was less fake than to call it "fake news." There was a memo. Gizmodo thought they had the full text. They actually only had the body text. That's pretty darn close.
- Khaine 9y ago
  That is a blatant lie. Gizmodo explicitly stated that they stripped references and diagrams: "Two charts and several hyperlinks are also omitted." [1] [1] https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-10-page-anti-diversity-screed-circulating-internally-at-google/ https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2017/08/exclusive-heres-the-full-...
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    Okay, so your argument is that it's "fake news" because Gizmodo nefariously stripped hyperlinks while openly telling everybody about it? Or was that note added later? I still think it's clearly attributable to ignorance rather than malice because presenting the text of a document is not uncommon to do; the fact that it changed the tone of the memo is unfortunate, but doesn't make the news "fake"
throwawayjava 9y ago
I read the full memo; the use of these things [1] is exactly as I describe. > He absolutely linked to all his citations Aside from non-sourced footnotes, the "sources" are for the most part hyperlinks to wikipedia articles, news articles, and position papers. These aren't sources. Source substantiate claims. A list of people who agree with you is not a "source". Also, the ACTUAL CLAIM -- that the set of uncontroversial differences between the sexes can explain gender disparity in tech -- IS entirely unsourced.