5 ms·

"...annoyance at the legalistic (and typically white male) Wikipedian." How are skin color and gender relevant to the article or the point being made?

purrcat259 9y ago
It read like low hanging identity politics fruit. I stopped reading after that statement.
nightcracker 9y ago
We've entered a new age of racism and sexism, where as long as whatever group you're targeting is perceived to be 'privileged', it's okay to be hateful and divisive. IMO there's a simple rule of thumb. If you can't replace 'white male' with some other group without the statement becoming incredibly offensive to you, you probably shouldn't say it. E.g., I sincerely doubt the author would be okay with saying "(and typically female)" or "(and typically black)" in nearly any context, so I fail to see why he/she feels this is okay.
dang 9y ago
Would you please not pick the most inflammatory and off-topic bit of an article and drag it in here to start a flamewar with? Threads are highly sensitive to initial conditions, so you can do a lot of damage this way. This is covered by the following site guideline: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- mosselman 9y ago
  Firstly, I am fine with you collapsing my comment. The following is just an addition to why I think it is somewhat relevant: The author claims that there are social constructs in place at wikipedia that lead to a bad working environment for contributors. There is not evidence provided to support this, but there is this offhand sexist and racist comment that gives insight into the way in which this author processes information around him/her. I find this a relevant bit of information for evaluating the merit of the article. What if you have an article with the title "SpaceX doomed to fail" "SpaceX could never succeed, their goals are unrealistic and they haven't done enough research.... The earth (which is flat by the way)..." Attacking the author on his flat earth believes would be a no go according to that policy, but it does provide information about the value of the author as a credible source.
  - dang 9y ago
    That's a good argument actually. I don't think it outweighs the fire hazard concern. In fact I'm sure it doesn't, because there's little chance the audience will react to the subtleties of what you're observing (especially if you don't say any of them to begin with!)—but only to the bait effect, and then we go down the same old spiral.
OscarCunningham 9y ago
In particular, are Wikipedians generally more white or male than GitHub users?
notzorbo3 9y ago
Does the author have any evidence that's it's typically white males? Is the author implying that white males are to blame for draconic / legalistic Wikipedia? Has the author proven that draconic wikipedia editting is a bad thing? Does the author show, in a mere three words) that they're both racist and sexist? (answer: yes). I like how the author negates the entire point of their article just by casually mentioning thier unproven, unfounded bias. This person's thoughts are not worth anybody's time.

purrcat259 9y ago

It read like low hanging identity politics fruit. I stopped reading after that statement.

nightcracker 9y ago

We've entered a new age of racism and sexism, where as long as whatever group you're targeting is perceived to be 'privileged', it's okay to be hateful and divisive. IMO there's a simple rule of thumb. If you can't replace 'white male' with some other group without the statement becoming incredibly offensive to you, you probably shouldn't say it. E.g., I sincerely doubt the author would be okay with saying "(and typically female)" or "(and typically black)" in nearly any context, so I fail to see why he/she feels this is okay.

dang 9y ago

Would you please not pick the most inflammatory and off-topic bit of an article and drag it in here to start a flamewar with? Threads are highly sensitive to initial conditions, so you can do a lot of damage this way. This is covered by the following site guideline: Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

mosselman 9y ago
Firstly, I am fine with you collapsing my comment. The following is just an addition to why I think it is somewhat relevant: The author claims that there are social constructs in place at wikipedia that lead to a bad working environment for contributors. There is not evidence provided to support this, but there is this offhand sexist and racist comment that gives insight into the way in which this author processes information around him/her. I find this a relevant bit of information for evaluating the merit of the article. What if you have an article with the title "SpaceX doomed to fail" "SpaceX could never succeed, their goals are unrealistic and they haven't done enough research.... The earth (which is flat by the way)..." Attacking the author on his flat earth believes would be a no go according to that policy, but it does provide information about the value of the author as a credible source.
- dang 9y ago
  That's a good argument actually. I don't think it outweighs the fire hazard concern. In fact I'm sure it doesn't, because there's little chance the audience will react to the subtleties of what you're observing (especially if you don't say any of them to begin with!)—but only to the bait effect, and then we go down the same old spiral.

OscarCunningham 9y ago

In particular, are Wikipedians generally more white or male than GitHub users?

notzorbo3 9y ago

Does the author have any evidence that's it's typically white males? Is the author implying that white males are to blame for draconic / legalistic Wikipedia? Has the author proven that draconic wikipedia editting is a bad thing? Does the author show, in a mere three words) that they're both racist and sexist? (answer: yes). I like how the author negates the entire point of their article just by casually mentioning thier unproven, unfounded bias. This person's thoughts are not worth anybody's time.