[Nasrudith]

No because their concerns are transparent misogyny - if they wanted actual coverage they would shame them with a complete list of contributors and snark that "an additional kilobyte or printed page isn't that expensive!". Sadly so many choose to be outraged over irrelevant bullshit instead of something which remotely matters.

[throwawaysea]

Fact-finding is not misogyny. And the facts in this case are that Bouman's algorithm was not used in the black hole image that is being hailed as a scientific milestone. She had other contributions here (see https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/111651854732747571... which credits her with writing the testing framework), but what was pitched in news headlines about her role/contributions was explicitly false. Pointing out the truth is not misogyny.

[Nasrudith]

I would welcome fact finders instead. The point is the focus on attacking one woman who wound up being an accidental figurehead instead of - after the creator already told them that he wanted no part in it. If not operating under an ulterior motive (transparent misogyny) they would tear apart the reporting.

If one is concerned about poor accuracy of say a report on 9/11 that claimed Steve Buschemi rescued the most survivors then it makes sense to slam the report as inaccurate tripe. Certainly not start harassing a guy actually involved with the rescue but had a role exaggerated. That is why I refer to it as transparent misogyny - since in what world does it make sense to lash out against the people who are misreported?

It is possible to act as a fact finder. By all means compile a complete list of contributions and itemize it in excruciating detail. Calling it fact-finding is just trying to use it as a rhetorical motte and bailey.

[fzeroracer]

People pointing out that Andrew Chael was far more important because he had '850k lines of code written' making her contributions worthless was not pointing out the truth. It was explicitly about tearing down her contributions.

[throwawaysea]

I agree, that particular argument was meaningless (since lines of code is not everything) and wrong (since a lot of those 850K lines were data). I agree some people behind that line of argument might have been looking to tear her down, and that the impulse to do so may have been rooted in misogyny.

That said, I also think it's not everyone, and that some who were examining the code base were just on a fact-finding mission given that this story was seemingly everywhere online and something felt off.

[malvosenior]

Why are the concerns transparent misogyny? Are people not allowed to voice concern as soon as the subject matter involves a woman? You can't just label all of the objections as misogyny and sweep them under the rug. I guess you can, but that's very much the mentality that's causing the toxic environment we find ourselves in.