|
|
|
|
|
|
by aw3c2
4227 days ago
|
|
|
My mindset is that of a scientist I guess. I don't trust people's own accounts, especially in such a heated debate. I want numbers, research and objectivity. > However, sadly, often the motivation is "she's successful" or "people are listening to her". Sources please! The wikis you linked seems highly loaded and written with agenda. The writing is purely self-serving(?), without criticism of itself. I am sure whoever wrote that feels it is the right way, but I don't see much value in that myself. The FLOSSPOLS survey linked seems very interesting and objective though, thank you! |
|
|
See http://www.derailingfordummies.com/ , and in particular http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-education/ and http://www.derailingfordummies.com/derail-using-intellectual... . (Note that that site is education combined with intentional tongue-in-cheek parody.)
Your anecdotes do not trump others anecdotes. And when you see enough of them, you start to draw conclusions about a pattern; the plural of "anecdote" sometimes is "evidence".
When you say you don't trust people's own accounts about their own experiences, you are in effect calling them a liar. Think carefully before doing so.
>> However, sadly, often the motivation is "she's successful" or "people are listening to her".
> Sources please!
For the original source, read "Trouble at the Kool-Aid Point".
I'd also suggest reading and considering the other specific points I reiterated in my response to you, rather than ignoring them.
> The wikis you linked seems highly loaded and written with agenda. The writing is purely self-serving(?), without criticism of itself. I am sure whoever wrote that feels it is the right way, but I don't see much value in that myself.
It is entirely unsurprising that the set of people who have done the most research and put the most effort into understanding these issues are those who are affected by them. If you dismiss any such sources, you will find yourself quite lacking in material to read, other than material that confirms your own pre-existing conclusions. All sources are biased; read them all and think for yourself rather than exclusively seeking those that claim lack of bias.
If you're looking exclusively for peer-reviewed scientific papers, there are no shortage of those as well. (You might also consider whether you're applying the same standards to evidence that supports your existing opinions as to evidence that contradicts your existing opinions.) Most of them are far less approachable and newcomer-friendly; you'd be hard-pressed to find a better introduction to this entire family of interrelated issues than geekfeminism.wikia.com . If you need to first confirm for yourself that such incidents exist, go read http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_incidents .