Most active commenters
  • shadowgovt(7)
  • SpicyLemonZest(3)
  • (3)

←back to thread

Wikimedia enacts new standards to address harassment and promote inclusivity

(wikimediafoundation.org)
95 points elsewhen | 16 comments | 26 May 20 05:22 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
Jonnax ◴[26 May 20 06:25 UTC] No.23308027[source]▶
Hacker news is a really good site for tech discussion.

But when it comes to anything about diversity / harassment in the workplace, it seems like a group of people crop up needing to tell everyone that they're the real victims

There's a signicant subset of people that cry the loudest of censorship only when it comes to communities having a stance against racism, sexism and homophobia.

In any other discussion about Wikipedia, there would be a significant concensus that Wikipedia has a unwelcoming to new editors community.

replies(6): >>23308098 #>>23308447 #>>23309978 #>>23310000 #>>23310471 #>>23310656 #
Mirioron ◴[26 May 20 11:57 UTC] No.23310000[source]▶
The Wikipedia community is unwelcoming and initiatives like this are part of the reason. That's because these initiatives for "inclusion" are quite often used for something superficial or as a convenient cudgel to hit someone you disagree with.

The way "inclusion" in the US/UK is done is what I would consider racist and sexist. I don't want to see more of it in online services that I use. Giving someone an advantage because of their race or sex and thus discriminating against others for the same reasons is racism/sexism.

Edit: we know Wikipedia has been a battleground for US politics for a long time now. I think this is seen as a step towards one side.

replies(2): >>23310264 #>>23310485 #
kabacha ◴[26 May 20 12:53 UTC] No.23310485[source]▶
As much as I agree with you, is "inclusivity" ever used maliciously?

I'm running some coding events and while I'm a firm believer in meritocracy often giving the space to outsiders or unusual folk end up in more interesting and new experiences for the event attendees. In my mind I see it as a meritocratic choice to diversify the floor and honestly I've never seen this "feature" being abused or cause any friction.

To me it seems like this attack vector is only when rewards are high (prize, job position) but for pay less and unappreciated work like wikipedia editing, or in my case coding presentations, I don't really see how this could be abused.

Maybe it's exclusively an American issue?

replies(3): >>23310614 #>>23311333 #>>23311717 #
belorn ◴[26 May 20 14:12 UTC] No.23311333[source]▶
Take an example from the python founder. He directly said during a talk that he will not mentor any males, with the implied goal of furthering inclusivity.

In my views, refusing to help people because of their gender is maliciously. Making decision about the worthiness of helping a young individual should not be about their gender. Call it a principle.

From reading about the science of discrimination and In-group and out-group thinking, there exist some key finding of human behavior and rationalization. "Us" are individuals and "them" are a homogenic group, and if you treat people like individuals you are automatically treating them as a part of "us". When someone of "us" do something wrong, it is about individual faults and circumstances. When someone of "them" do something wrong, it is a inherent trait of the group and fundamental aspect their kind.

The attack vector can only exist when a set of people are treated as a homogenic group rather than individuals. Inclusivity initiatives should in theory never do this, but defining people as a homogenic group is sadly what most of them end up doing. Maybe it because it easy and quick, or because it makes for good signaling to the in-group. The result is usually the same with the out-group feeling abused and attacked, especially for individuals who been moved from being in-group to out-group and now instinctual feel more vulnerable to attacks.

replies(3): >>23311923 #>>23312675 #>>23313833 #
1. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 15:51 UTC] No.23312675[source]▶
Is Guido choosing to tip the scales really a malicious use of inclusivity? It's not like young men interested in Python have nowhere else to go.

I think how Guido wants to spend his time is up to Guido.

replies(4): >>23313242 #>>23313409 #>>23313421 #>>23324214 #
2. username90 ◴[26 May 20 16:36 UTC] No.23313242[source]▶
> It's not like young men interested in Python have nowhere else to go.

It tells them that inclusivity is against their interests. Boys growing up where they are explicitly barred from opportunities due to their gender are probably not going to be very willing to accommodate women in the future. Also things like this has shown to not move the needle, so all you accomplish is drive the wedge between genders even further down.

> I think how Guido wants to spend his time is up to Guido.

And we are allowed to criticize him for it.

replies(1): >>23313473 #
3. alexandercrohde ◴[26 May 20 16:49 UTC] No.23313409[source]▶
So by that reasoning, if Guido said he'd never mentor females that wouldn't be sexist? Because if you think that I bet you're alone...
replies(1): >>23313455 #
4. SpicyLemonZest ◴[26 May 20 16:51 UTC] No.23313421[source]▶
Yes, it's pretty malicious, both against the targets of his sexist policy and the broader movement towards inclusion. If young men come to understand that "inclusivity" means blocking them from certain opportunities, they're not going to be on board with proposals to make hiring or promotions more inclusive.
replies(1): >>23313511 #
5. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 16:53 UTC] No.23313455[source]▶
Not all sexism is a malicious use of inclusivity.
replies(2): >>23315550 #>>23316018 #
6. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 16:54 UTC] No.23313473[source]▶
This over-extrapolates though. Guido deciding to mentor women doesn't imply every Pythonista is or should be doing the same. And when the userbase is already mostly men, the existing pipelines are demonstrably working for men; making an effort to pull in women isn't shrinking anyone's pie.
7. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 16:57 UTC] No.23313511[source]▶
So is the argument that fewer men now have mentoring opportunities because Guido is choosing to exclusively mentor women?

I think that interpretation grossly over-values Guido's mentorship contributions.

replies(1): >>23313831 #
8. SpicyLemonZest ◴[26 May 20 17:20 UTC] No.23313831{3}[source]▶
The argument is that, when someone says "we're going to make this mentorship program more inclusive", people will have to wonder whether they mean normal inclusivity or Guido's sexist inclusivity. His actions alone won't radically shift the needle, but we'll eventually reach a point where inclusivity just means "there are a lot of women" and the original idea of fair opportunities for everyone is lost.

Note that this isn't a radical conspiracy - it's already happened in some areas. There are a lot of colleges with special inclusion resources for women, even though women are significantly overrepresented in the modern university system.

replies(1): >>23314023 #
9. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 17:33 UTC] No.23314023{4}[source]▶
The statistic about higher education is less interesting when you factor in the stats on vocation-education programs (which are mostly men).
replies(1): >>23314064 #
10. SpicyLemonZest ◴[26 May 20 17:36 UTC] No.23314064{5}[source]▶
I don't follow. Why would you factor in stats from vocational education programs to determine whether universities are inclusive or not?
replies(2): >>23314354 #>>23315519 #
11. shadowgovt ◴[26 May 20 17:59 UTC] No.23314354{6}[source]▶
Because they indicate how, in general, men continue to have more educational opportunities. Whether universities are inclusive is a subset of the question of whether the idea of fair opportunities for everyone is lost.
12. ◴[26 May 20 19:37 UTC] No.23315519{6}[source]▶
13. ◴[26 May 20 19:40 UTC] No.23315550{3}[source]▶
14. ◴[26 May 20 20:29 UTC] No.23316018{3}[source]▶
15. belorn ◴[27 May 20 14:51 UTC] No.23324214[source]▶
Yes, words and symbolic acts alone can be malicious regardless if the practical effect is negligible. Since the parent post talked about running coding events, Guido public stance is an example of what to not do in such events.

I have participated in events for gifted children, including teaching python. One such child already had before they came to the event written up the whole game design, painted the different rooms and enemies, created most of the game logic and now needed help with hit detection in pygames. Hit detection is quite a bit beyond the tutorial part of pygames, but in the end we mostly accomplished the goal and they left quite happy. Did I care about their gender or even asked about it? Of course not. Here was a person who needed my help.

Maybe no immedient harm would have happened if I had rejected that child based on their gender or treated them as part of a homogenic group with unchangeable inherent traits. There is always other people, other resources, and they clearly demonstrated the ability to self learn. But what kind of person would I be if I did that?

replies(1): >>23324897 #
16. shadowgovt ◴[27 May 20 15:37 UTC] No.23324897[source]▶
> Did I care about their gender or even asked about it?

No. They were a boy though. I'll tell you why I'm saying that with confidence: because we know men are most of the Python userbase, and they're more comfortable approaching other Pythonistas for help because they're other men. Argument from statistical probability.

That's specifically the issue Guido is seeking to address, and he's not going to do it successfully by not caring about gender. Not caring about gender tends to get us more of the status quo, not something approaching more inclusiveness.

If the kid was a girl, good for her and I commend her forwardness and bravery. We know most women aren't interested in putting themselves in that position because it's uncomfortable for them (any more than most men are interested in stepping into a knitting circle to learn more from a group of women). And if Python as a community is to grow the pie, that situation needs to change. So that it's not just you who doesn't need to care about the gender of the student; it's the student who doesn't need to care about the gender of the teacher.