3 ms·
What I don't like about this article (besides the very obvious conclusions that it starts out with and then hits you over the head with) is that it doesn't atte
by AHappyCamper 5y ago
What I don't like about this article (besides the very obvious conclusions that it starts out with and then hits you over the head with) is that it doesn't attempt to reach any wikipedia mod or reviewer for a comment. It's only the author's side and the author's narrative. Also, correlation does not imply causation. The fact that women's pages get deleted more often doesn't mean that there is a gender bias against women.
- nashalo 5y agoClicking on this headline I knew for sure that the person was a woman, even if I knew nothing of the case. At some point we can't hide behind correlation is not causation anymore.
- gambiting 5y ago>>Clicking on this headline I knew for sure that the person was a woman How? Like, I don't really have anything else to add - I'm just curious how could you possibly be so sure before you even opened the article. >> At some point we can't hide behind correlation is not causation anymore. Is it still hiding if it's true?
- bobthechef 5y ago"Clicking on this headline I knew for sure that the person was a woman" And this proves what exactly? Putting aside that you didn't "know" anything, all it shows is that you made a correct guess. On what basis? Well, probably because the media have been yammering on about gender bias for years. So you're confusing your own prior bias with reality. Congrats. You've discovered confirmation bias.
- beecafe 5y agoThe usage of the word probably implies the same about this take.
- prvc 5y agoIn this case you may be perceiving a different type of bias than you assume.
- andyxor 5y agoafter interacting with some wikipedia "mods" i got an impression it's a complete waste of time, kind of like talking to religious fanatics or nerdy leftists, they seem to have unlimited time on their hands and will DDoS you with endless bureaucracy