4 ms·

>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 evidenc

>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.

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.