Jump to content

Talk:Google's Ideological Echo Chamber: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Another one
Line 184: Line 184:
=== Poll ===
=== Poll ===
*{{agree}} it is clearly relevant. But we should add a summary section and including it as a subsection.--[[User:Rævhuld|Rævhuld]] ([[User talk:Rævhuld|talk]]) 14:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
*{{agree}} it is clearly relevant. But we should add a summary section and including it as a subsection.--[[User:Rævhuld|Rævhuld]] ([[User talk:Rævhuld|talk]]) 14:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
:First, Raehuld is a brand new account which proclaims to be "deeply fascinated with science, and I enjoy editing articles related to chemistry", but if anyone can find a single edit about science or chemistry they made, I got a lollipop for you. Rather, they immediately started editing articles related to alt-right, "man's rights" (sic) and terrorist attacks. That raises more red flags than they have edits. Second, you can't take a poll on a straight up violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written. This would be straight up [[WP:OR|original research]]. So no. And why isn't this article semi-protected? [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek|talk]]) 06:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

=== Discussion ===
=== Discussion ===
There are a number of arguments for including the citations:
There are a number of arguments for including the citations:

Revision as of 06:58, 15 August 2017

Damore's Background Relevancy?

Article has a high amount of focus on discrediting the manifesto's author by identifying his (lack of) work at Harvard University, but it's not relevant to the story of the manifesto and only serves to politicise the piece. Suggest trimming his background.--A1Qicks (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While Damore's previous tenure is not relevant at this point, then his current or former academic positions are not personal life. -Mardus /talk 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The removal of his academic time is here. -Mardus /talk 15:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO his brief touch with biology is relevant, since this is a hint where his "biological" ideas come from. But this kind of background analysis must come from sources, otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly if his background in biology is not relevant then surely Megan Smith's background as Google VP is just as irrelevant and shouldn't be mentioned either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 07:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: James Damore had an actual resume where he listed he was a FIDE master in chess which he is not. I'm no chess expert and this is hardly relevant to the article but it's interesting he would lie in his actual resume about something that most people can't verify. It would be interesting to know how he actually got hired. Even if you start as an intern there is probably still an interview and they will look at your resume. Or did they?

Link: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18271/is-james-damore-a-fide-master

2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

quilette

Discussion with poll down on the site agrees, that Quilette is a notable source
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

First - what is this source? Their twitter says "A platform for free thought featuring unorthodox viewpoints in politics, science & art" which is a big red flag for WP:FRINGE. Their "about" page says something similar, about "dangerous ideas" (often a code phrase for "nonsense") but I can't access it because it's down.

Second - as an article this is a WP:PRIMARY source. It most certainly DOES NOT "provide an overview of academic opinions". It just has four scientists, probably cherry picked ones, commenting. I guess it would be ok to cite some of them with attribution BUT...

Third - ... by itself this is WP:UNDUE because this is just one source, with a particular bias, and cannot be called representative. It's cherry picked, both in terms of sources, and what is being chosen out of that particular source.

Please don't restore the material without discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Try to be constructive. You have a few options: Add references and summaries from RS yourself, leave a citation requesting additional sources or destroying. Wikipedia is an iterative process, try to build, not destroy. You have now removed the distinction between scientific and other opinion. Lets hope that doesn't cause problems down the line. 1130pm in UK, too tired to argue further. Will come back to points in AM.Keith Johnston (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to address any of the points (one, two or three) that I have made.
Also, the fact that Assange tweeted some troll crap, is not significant and is UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we restrict opinions to those that received secondary coverage. So far I see Quillette covered in USA Today [1]. The opinion I removed (Angela Saini) had no secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden I have incorporated the USA Today pieceKeith Johnston (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Saini is a recognized expert published by a reliable source with full attribution. Grayfell (talk) 01:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By whom is she recognized as an expert in biology or social science? If it were so I'd expect secondary coverage. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Her utterance is neither of biological or otherwise scientific nature: it is a valid observation of a journalist about a certain subsociety, well within her recognized area of expertise. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statement we cite to her is: "[the memo] reflected common misconceptions about the biological differences between men and women, and demonstrated a flawed understanding of the research it cited." That is clearly a statement about biology. So I ask again: by whom is she recognized as an expert on biology? James J. Lambden (talk)
(edit conflict) If she were "just" a journalist, I wouldn't have included this. We shouldn't include every comment we can find. Saini has published a book on the subject of the science of biological sex differences through Harper Collins, which has been positively reviewed by The Economist,[2] the Guardian,[3] The Times,[4] The Week,[5], etc. The New Statesman specifically recommends her latest book as an explanation of this issue with Silicon Valley without even mentioning the Guardian article.[6] Her expertise has been established well enough that a single sentence of her attributed opinion can be included to help contextualize the article, especially since the article might not even last. If it really matters, Vox mentions the article, and uses stronger language than I did to make a similar point.[7] Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You had me at Vox (secondary coverage.) But that someone with no background or training in social science or biology could write a well-reviewed book on the intersection of social science and biology is more an indictment of the publishing industry and journalism than anything else. Oh well. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First - This would be a completely understandable concern for a staff writer, who isn't simply responding to a request from Quillette. In this case, I think the people they are quoting have positions that are not fringe at all in their chosen fields. The "unorthodox views" umbrella is still fair because academics are mostly out of the public eye.

Second - Citing Quillette as an "overview of academic opinions" is something I would never do. I agree that these four scientists are cherry-picked, just like the two who wrote for Recode are. Quoting with attribution is indeed my goal and I only need to do that for Lee Jussim. He's the one whose statements I did not find printed elsewhere.

Third - No single source will be representative in a contentious issue like this. We impart a neutral POV to Wikipedia by referencing many of the ones that pass reliability / notability criteria. Regarding WP:UNDUE, if you think this article is missing sources that say the opposite of Jussim, by all means add them. Connor Behan (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have several comments:

  • The whole section "Scientific Views" is simply a selection of experts who have commented on the memo. To call some source "cherry-picked" is beside the point.
  • The Quilette article is quoted in many places: here in NY Mag for instance, and in opinion columns by David Brooks in the NYT and Cathy Young in USA Today.
  • The first name is the one I know the best. Lee Jussim is a well-known and respected social psychologist, at least on par with anyone quoted in the section. Check his Google scholar page: his most famous work on self-fulfilling prophecies has been cited almost 900 times. He has also done a lot of work on stereotypes and accuracy, including a book book Social Perception and Social Reality by Oxford University Press.
  • It's a bit weird because three of the four people in the Quilette article are already quoted in the section. (Schmitt, Miller and Soh)

I suggest that the people there be quoted with attribution, just like the other people in the section are. The quotes should be short and to the point, to avoid WP:UNDUE. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 01:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses

This article is seriously lacking when it doesn't include psychologists' responses to the memo, seeing as the memo made psychological claims. It's important for the context behind the debate surrounding the memo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree we should rely on scientists for claims about science. On the topic of cultural issues (women-in-tech) no scientific expertise is necessary. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article made several psychological claims, and many of the responses addressed those claims as "pseudoscience," "bunk science," and "perpetuating harmful stereotypes." It's important for perspective to examine who's right here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be more specific for what you had in mind? Without specific sources to work with this is all speculative. Grayfell (talk) 02:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I see that Quilette was addressed above. Prof. Jordan B. Peterson, whose main field of study is personality psychology, including gender differences, responded by saying it was "scientifically accurate." (If this is significant enough to include in the article I'll find the source for you.) I haven't yet seen what Simon Baron-Cohen thinks of it--much of the memo was based on his research.
And Psychology Today has a piece supporting the psychological claims, but disputing the conclusion (not sure if psychologists' opinions on google's diversity policy is relevant). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari1891adler (talk • contribs) 02:36, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Peterson is controversial, to put it mildly, and Breitbart is completely out of the question. His opinion could be considered only with a reputable source and clear attribution.
I assume you mean this article from Psychology Today. Is this from KotakuInAction? Never mind, it doesn't matter. This should be handled with caution, as it's not really saying a lot about the memo itself. It's... sort of supporting the claims, but I think that's debatable. It's saying that sex differences exist but they aren't that strong, etc. This kind of thing is very, very easy to misread without a strong background in psychology, especially his use of statistics. The author also specifically (and commendably) qualifies much of his comments by saying they are outside of his area of expertise. Grayfell (talk) 02:56, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Controversial does not necessarily mean not-reliable. Also most of the """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""reliable sources""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" cited in the article have published very blatant lies about this very topic. Anyone who cares about source reliability should be very alarmed that the wikipedia dogma places blind faith in publications that are twisting and mispresenting a topic. The nature of Wikipedia as a partisan news site where the article is constantly changing instead of an encyclopedia becomes more clear with each controversy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.100.79.42 (talk) 10:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Psychology Today is an excellent RS and I have included it . If you think you can write a better summary of the contents of this RS feel free.Keith Johnston (talk) 07:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

The sources introduce the subject as Google's Ideological Echo Chamber. Even if they later call it the Google memo/manifesto in short, the former title is the most recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy). I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt it. When I checked if Wikipedia had an article on it I just typed in "google memo", not the title, which most people will not recognize right away.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While "Google memo" may be a bit general - although that's how it's refereed to in sources - putting this under the title that the guy gave it is basically stating something in Wikipedia voice. It's implicitly agreeing with his argument which is summarized by the title.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many Wikipedia articles about books, essays, poems, and other works use these works' titles as the Wikipedia articles' titles. Using a memo's actual title as the Wikipedia article's title does not mean that Wikipedia supports the author's position. It simply means that Wikipedia is introducing this memo, just as introducing other books, essays, poems, etc..--Neo-Jay (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy here is WP:POVTITLE. FallingGravity 05:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo-Jay Those are published works. I was gonna give as an example something like Unabomber manifesto but it turns out that's part of the Ted Kaczynski article. That's funny, we don't have a separate article for the Unabomber manifesto - which was a huge deal since the guy threatened to keep bombing unless it was published - but we have an article for this little dinky thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: We are not discussing about a merger issue, are we? We are discussing about the title issue. And Unabomber manifesto redirects Ted Kaczynski's specific section: Industrial Society and Its Future, the actual title of that essay. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said it wasn't a good example. Anyway, we should get a proper RM going.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does your "RM" mean "requested move" or "requested merger"? If the latter, then you can start a "Merger proposal" section and we may discuss there. And by the way, Google's Ideological Echo Chamber has been published (by WND, see this page). --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Article title change voting

I consolidated all of the votes into this new sub-section. No content was modified, added, or removed - only consolidation was performed. Additionally, all other content and discussion was left as-is in the above section. airuditious (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL (as outlined above): Re-name the article from "Google memo" back to the initial title "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber".

Lede

@Anthony Ivanoff: This edit isn't going to work. Biology is a central point of the memo according to multiple sources. According to Fortune, Motherboard is the one who broke the story. Motherboard is the main source we should be using, and we need a specific reason to switch to some other source in the lede. Among other problems, this edit uses a commentary piece from Fortune to downplay biology, even though that article also explains that it's central to the memo. This also ignores Fortune's own news-style summary of the issue, which even more strongly emphasizes biology. Grayfell (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the TL;DR summary in our article only 1 (possibly 1.5) of the 5 bullet points deal with biology. To say biology is "central" (depending on how you mean that) would be incorrect. The sources reflect is a component of the memo not the component.
I'm not too concerned about who broke the story. It's not an investigative piece where Vice has access to research other sources do not. The memo is freely available and in fact I believe other sources posted text from internal chats which Vice did not access. But I do agree we should use a better source than fortune. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The "TL:DR" will have to be completely rewritten to avoid WP:COPYVIO, and to be in a formal tone, for one thing. Regardless, summaries are only encyclopedic when they reflect reliable sources. Weren't you the one who just said you wanted secondary sources? We cannot favor an arbitrarily selected commentary piece for defining the document in the lede, and a rambling primary list copied from the document itself should not act as the sole summary. If Motherboard, Fortune, and others all mention that biology is an important part of this memo (regardless of how many k of space it takes up) than so should Wikipedia. This is, according to sources, a defining aspect of the document, and the lede should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Original Text Inclusion?

Much of the reaction to the memo/manifesto has been targeted towards the 4 sections of the 24-section document which refer specifically to biological differences in genders (6 in total which mention gender in general), but the memo itself offers several other arguments (particularly political differences, suggestions for improving ideological diversity, Google approaches to diversity the author identifies as non-functional).

Understandably, this page leans heavily on the gender argument because that's what the sources are reporting, but it doesn't offer a complete and unbiased guide to the actual memo - to what extent is it worth providing an increase to the "Text" section to identify other features of the memo for a complete understanding of the author's argument?--A1Qicks (talk) 08:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree, maybe not the whole memo (unsure, depends on length) but we should certainly expand on the memo itself - esp charts and references used. This is particularly important since some public commentary appears become its own echo chamber, and less and less related to the actual contents of the memo as time goes by.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun to start a section on sources cited in the memo. perhaps other editors could assist. Thank you.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific responses v others

I propose to create a subsection within responses entitled "Scientific responses". This will help readers distinguish between responses from scientists and other cultural commentators.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

USA Today

USA Today didn't "report" anything. It printed an opinion piece by Cathy Young.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

and therefore your constructive editorial suggestion is? Try to be constructive, we are building a page from scratch here.Keith Johnston (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My constructive suggestion is for editors not to misrepresent sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources cited in the memo

I have created a Sources cited in the memo section. This is key since the memo includes a number of citations supporting its argumentation including:

  • Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, 168–182 [1]
  • Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Volume 4, Issue 11, pages 1098–1110, November 2010 [2]
  • Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’ by Aaron Neil, Quillette Magazine, 15 July 2017 [3]
  • The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers, The Atlantic Magazine, May 2000[4]
  • Women, careers, and work-life preferences, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34, No. 3, August 2006 [5]
  • Hard Truths About Race on Campus, by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussum, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2016 [6]
  • The Real War on Science: The Left has done far more than the Right to set back progress. John Tierney, City Magazine, Autumn 2016 [7]
  • Heteredox Academy, The Problem [8]
  • Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? Maria Konnikova, New Yorker Magazine, October 30, 2014 [9]
  • Why Men Earn More (summary), Dr. Warren Farrell [10]
  • A Non-Feminist FAQ, August 6, 2016 [11]
  • The Personality of Political Correctness, Scientific American, by Scott Barry Kaufman on November 20, 2016[12]
  • The Process of Moralization, Paul Rozin First Published May 1, 1999 [13]
  • Liberal Privilege in Psychology Lee Jussim Ph.D., 26 September 2012, Psychology Today [14]
  • Conservative professors must fake being liberal or be punished on campus by Kyle Smith April 17, 2016, New York Post [15]
  • Liberals, conservatives, and personality traits by Steve Bogira, August 18, 2011, Chicago Reader [16]
  • Against Empathy, Paul Bloom, Boston Review, September 10, 2014 [17]

References

  1. ^ Why Can’t a Man Be More Like a Woman? Sex Differences in Big Five Personality Traits Across 55 Cultures, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 94, No. 1, 168–182 http://www.bradley.edu/dotAsset/165918.pdf
  2. ^ Gender Differences in Personality and Interests: When, Where, and Why?, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, Volume 4, Issue 11, pages 1098–1110, November 2010http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/wol1/doi/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00320.x/abstract/
  3. ^ Aaron Neil: Why It’s Time To Stop Worrying About First World ‘Gender Gaps’, Quillette Magazinehttp://quillette.com/2017/07/15/time-stop-worrying-first-world-gender-gaps/
  4. ^ The War Against Boys, Christina Hoff Sommers, The Atlantic Magazine, May 2000 https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2000/05/the-war-against-boys/304659/
  5. ^ Women, careers, and work-life preferences, British Journal of Guidance & Counselling, Vol. 34, No. 3, August 2006
  6. ^ Hard Truths About Race on Campus, by Jonathan Haidt and Lee Jussum, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2016http://www.businessforum.com/WSJ_Race-on-Campus-05-06-2016.pdf
  7. ^ https://www.city-journal.org/html/real-war-science-14782.html The Real War on Science
  8. ^ Heteredox Academy, The Problemhttps://heterodoxacademy.org/problems/
  9. ^ Is Social Psychology Biased Against Republicans? Maria Konnikova, New Yorker Magazine, October 30, 2014http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans
  10. ^ Why Men Earn More (summary), Dr. Warren Farrell http://www.warrenfarrell.net/Summary/
  11. ^ A Non-Feminist FAQ, August 6, 2016 https://becauseits2015.wordpress.com/2016/08/06/a-non-feminist-faq/#addressing
  12. ^ The Personality of Political Correctness, Scientific American, By Scott Barry Kaufman on November 20, 2016 https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-personality-of-political-correctness/
  13. ^ The Process of Moralization, Paul Rozin First Published May 1, 1999http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9280.00139
  14. ^ Liberal Privilege in Psychology Lee Jussim Ph.D., 26 September 2012, Psychology Today https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/rabble-rouser/201209/liberal-privilege-in-psychology
  15. ^ Conservative professors must fake being liberal or be punished on campus by Kyle Smith April 17, 2016, New York Posthttps://nypost.com/2016/04/17/conservative-professors-must-fake-being-liberal-or-be-punished-on-campus
  16. ^ https://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/archives/2011/08/18/4462041-liberals-conservatives-and-personality-traits
  17. ^ Against Empathy, Paul Bloom, Boston Review, September 10, 2014 https://bostonreview.net/forum/paul-bloom-against-empathy

ENDS

Summarising this is a massive task with significant dangers of original research, for now this section allows readers to source the citations. if you wish to summarise the memo go ahead, but that is not a reason to destroy this section.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

First, Raehuld is a brand new account which proclaims to be "deeply fascinated with science, and I enjoy editing articles related to chemistry", but if anyone can find a single edit about science or chemistry they made, I got a lollipop for you. Rather, they immediately started editing articles related to alt-right, "man's rights" (sic) and terrorist attacks. That raises more red flags than they have edits. Second, you can't take a poll on a straight up violation of Wikipedia policy. This is not how Wikipedia articles are written. This would be straight up original research. So no. And why isn't this article semi-protected? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There are a number of arguments for including the citations: 1) they are effectively part of the memo - and the memo does not make sense without reference to them 2) They are not easy to summarise without engaging in Original Reserach 3) They provide the background argumentation to the memo

An argument has been raised that it would be preferable to summarise the contents of the memo and include reference to the citations as part of that project. I agree there is not enough actual content on this page about the memo itself, but the Sources of the Memo helps, and does not hinder that insight. If you wish as an editor to take on the task of summarising the memo then feel free, but this is not an argument for deleting this section - rather it is an argument for superseding it with a new section. That new section may take some time to write given the controversial nature of this topic. Therefore until such time as we have a new section and consensus on this, it is preferable to list the sources.Keith Johnston (talk) 12:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a summary of the citations used which also explains how the author has misused/misunderstood them (as per reliable sources). But I don't see the value of just making a copy of the citations on this page. If somebody wants to see all the citations they can just follow the link to the document. --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article is supposed to be a summary of what reliable sources have reported on the issue, not a original research analysis of every single one of his sources. I've removed the section as unencyclopedic. We're not here to host a debate club about the memo, we're here to write an encyclopedia article about the controversy. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the article has two purposes - to present the primary source (the memo) in a format which is accessible to the reader (which is why the sources are key) and to discuss RS reaction. By way of example see page on the Balfour Declaration. We cannot discuss the reaction without presenting the memo - which includes these references. It is also particularly useful since the sources are not easily identifiable in the original document (the author does not follow wikipedia guidelines!). Finally, by letting the sources speak for themselves we avoid problems associated with original research in controversial articles like this. Editors may wish to summarise the contents of the sources but this will no doubt be a lengthy process.
On the subject of the reference to Neuroticism, it is relevant and this should be included. However, this introduces a problem which it is not obvious to me how to solve. The author of the memo has referenced pages at a particular point in time. In order to accurately reference these pages we will need to reference an external source which captures the meaning of those pages at that time. if we do not then the meaning will change over time, which has little utility. If editors have a solution I am happy to hear it.

Please do not remove these sources until we have reached a consensus.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC) Its getting a bit hot in here, lets continue the discussion on the Rfc below.Keith Johnston (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the way it works, and you're well over 3RR; if you don't self-revert you're likely to be blocked. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about including "Sources cited in the memo" on this page

Should this page contain the section on "Sources cited in the memo"? Keith Johnston (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Support
Please see my comment below, this is a qualified support in the spirit of "What amount of the memo are we going to present to the reader?" I sadly do not know the best way to handle that part (do we just block quote the whole thing? If so the sources will be present there anyway). I do believe there has been discussion of the sources used (there was a scientific response section at one point, haven't check recently), so I don't know that any OR argument really holds weight in that sense. Arkon (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

  • Comment I'm not a fan of the current "Text of the Memo" section not actually including the....text of the Memo. We might need to start with that section to determine what we want to include or not. Arkon (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a further argument that, by denying the inclusion of the citations, the Wikipedia summary of the memo fundamentally misrepresents the memo.

It is notable that Gizmodo’s original publication of the memo was the text only, and they omitted the citations and the charts. This was commented on by some critics:

“As Gizmodo’s post gained momentum, a common objection to it was that Damore makes statements without backing them up with evidence. As it turns out, he did —there are at least 27 links embedded in the original memo that back up his statements, along with 2 charts. But Gizmodo didn’t publish those in its post which it marketed as including the ‘Full 10-Page’ memo. Why? It noted the omissions in a small note at the bottom most people missed. The effect: all chances of sparking a meaningful debate based on controversial statements backed by evidence vanished in favor of a flame-throwing debate backed by feelings.” See https://medium.com/@100millionbooks/2-things-about-that-google-memo-75d3dcd29cc5

Gizmodo quickly updated the memo and added the citations and charts because by omitting them they were supporting a view of the memo that it was a screed. By omitting the citations we face the same dangers.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gizmodo has NOT fixed and their "screed" article still does not include the links etc. check for yourself. Unless they disingenuously did it in a subsequent piece, in which case I will be polite and avoid using some choice words to describe them Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:41, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Motherboard however, published the full memo with links/charts. here is the link for it if someone wishes to add inside the article. [8]. Jazi Zilber (talk) 10:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Comment

Arguments against the inclusion of the sources fall into these categories: 1) That it is original research 2) That is provides undue weight 3) That it is unenclyopedic 4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia 5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

I shall address each argument in turn. 1) The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist/

This is not what I am proposing. I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. In fact to deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, as it consists of the text, the citations and the charts.

2) Undue weight – Wikipedia states: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources

Thus this charge is incorrect. Once again, I am proposing to include the citations included in the memo for the purpose of completeness. To deny reference to the sources is to misrepresent the primary source, and fundamentally corrupts the primary source. It is Undue weight not to include the sources.

3) That it is unenclyopedic. I have read the section on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Encyclopedic_content None of the advice suggests that citations to a primary source should not be included.

4) That the sources are not RS as defined by Wikipedia. This arguments demonstrates confusion in the mind of the editors. The citations are not RS, they are part of the primary source under discussion in the article.

5) That the sources are available in the memo, which is linked below

As stated above the Sources are not easy to identify in the original source document (which is linked to) so referring to them by their title and providing a link to them is useful for those who wish to know more about the memo. Some editors may have practical issues which the sources being a long list, and therefore upsetting the narrative. If that is the case then we can include the Sources under Further reading.

Can editors please let me know their reaction to this, and ideally address the arguments. Keith Johnston (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate media coverage

Bre Payton, The Federalist, August 8 2017, Here Are All The Media Outlets Blatantly Lying About The Google Memo

The Washington Post, CNN, Time Magazine, Ian Bogost of The Atlantic, Forbes, The Huffington Post, Vanity Fair, ABC News, Slate, and Gizmodo all published "blatant lies" about the contents of the memo. These sources are not reliable for claims that are so strongly disputed. 71.198.247.231 (talk) 17:52, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biography

Should we include a short biographical section on James Damore, with basic information on his academic and professional background? NoMoreHeroes (talk) 19:43, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - not in this article. Any bio information concerning Damore belongs on a page dedicated to him if that page is deemed appropriate for Wikipedia. Putting it here, aside from being off-topic, would only serve to further the character assassination already begun on Damore and would also distract the reader away from the relevant issues within and surrounding the memo. airuditious (talk) 19:54, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, he is not notable enough for his own article, but his background has been widely reported by various sources across the spectrum. I definitely think it deserves inclusion, even if a minor one. And honestly I don't see how saying basic facts such as he went to UIUC and Harvard and worked at Google since 2013 would "further the character assassination"; it would be quite the opposite, in fact. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he's not noteworthy enough for his own article, then surely personal details about him are equally or even more un-noteworthy. If the author's personal details were somehow relevant to the focus of this article or to the issues raised by the memo, then possibly (though still somewhat dubious even of that). But we do not have either of those situations here - Damore's experience, training, education, etc. are not at all related to the memo's contents or the issues it raises. It's the same as asking if you or I need to provide our personal details for us to be taken seriously on Wikipedia? Of course not - our words and argumentation speak for themselves. The purpose of this specific article is the memo itself, its contents, and the issues raised by it. airuditious (talk) 20:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do reliable sources focus on his academic and professional background? If not, I think it would be undue weight at this point; however, if the story continues in the media and Damore makes his academic and professional background an issue of public concern (e.g. if he claims that because he has a certain educational background, his memo should be taken more seriously), then it might become relevant. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The proper question would be: Do reliable sources link his academic, professional, political, etc. background with the memo? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:37, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But then you are opening the door to something like Wikipedia asserting that it is appropriate for that linking to occur. I would re-state and ask "Is it appropriate to link ..." and as I've mentioned earlier, IMHO, the answer at this point is no. airuditious (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing of the kind for Wikipedia to assert. If and only reliable sources do such linking, in becomes appropriate for Wikipedia to report such linking. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If by "...to report such linking..." you mean staying within a narrow context and stating something like "SOME PUB has maintained that Damore's experience does\does not...", then sure. Otherwise, it is likely improper to include any bio content in this article...at least at this point in time. As NorthBySouthBaranof mentioned earlier, will need to re-address if something changes such as Damore stating his experience, education, etc. in some way supports the content in his memo. airuditious (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

If we're going to have this article: the names of David P. Schmitt and Cathy Young should be wikilinked. 69.159.83.14 (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Arkon (talk) 23:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: Fixes

  1. Make the Geoffrey Miller wikilink point to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Miller_(psychologist) not the disambiguation page
  2. fix whatever is causing the angle bracket (<) to show up in reference 4

- 2603:3024:200:300:1C86:5747:329F:C148 (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Cjhard (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions from actual scientists

At least four scientists in the field have claimed, that the memo got its science right (either in large parts or entirely). An example on something we could include is below. If you find scientists who claim something different, please just add it into the article as well.--Rævhuld (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Example
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

 Science

Professor Lee Jussim claims "The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right." Other scientists like the pyschologist David P. Schmitt, professor for evolutionary psychology Geoffrey Miller and PhD in sexual neuroscience Debra W Soh agreed either entirely or in large parts with the scientific facts in the memo, criticizing that some newspapers didn't took notice of the scientific references James Damore provided.[1]

David P. Schmitt, a personality psychologist writing for Psychology Today said that "in my view, claiming that sex differences exist in negative emotionality is not an 'incorrect assumption about gender.' It is an empirically well-supported claim," but that such differences were "unlikely to be all that relevant to the Google workplace," and were "not very large".[2]

References

  1. ^ thought, Quillette MagazineA platform for free (2017-08-07). "The Google Memo: Four Scientists Respond". Quillette. Retrieved 2017-08-10.
  2. ^ Schmitt, David (August 7, 2017). "On That Google Memo About Sex Differences". Psychology Today. Retrieved August 9, 2017.

Potential sources

I haven't had time to go through and incorporate these sources into the article. Leaving them here in case anyone is inclined:

James J. Lambden (talk) 17:26, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

more sources to considers
The CSM one is interesting for setting a larger context.
The Cosmo one is interesting for not being a tech/business source, but a women oriented source. - 2603:3024:200:300:CCD7:B465:21DB:71FC (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might it be a good idea to add a link to the full memo? I don't know how long this one stays up, but for what it's worth, here it is: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fringe Dweller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link in the article to https://diversitymemo.com with the full text. 173.228.123.18 (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@James J. Lambden thanks, v useful Keith Johnston (talk) 06:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek you have reverted my edit including this source: * https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/

You stated two arguments -1) that we should only use "notable reactions" and that 2) otherwise this will turn into a "he said, she said". Please 1) define notable and explain why The Globe and Mail and/or the author are not RS but the Guardian is and 2) RS (see BBC) say the science is conflicting so we should reflect this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 07:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.recode.net/2017/8/11/16127992/google-engineer-memo-research-science-women-biology-tech-james-damore - 2600:1010:B057:B180:B5A3:4C50:9B86:D4C9 (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-google-got-right-with-its-sexism-crisis-that-uber-didnt-2017-8 "But unlike Uber — which is still recovering from the public maelstrom it found itself in the throes of just a few months ago — the tech giant actually seems to be faring well for itself in its demonstration of "unequivocal" commitment to diversity, say branding experts." - 2603:3024:200:300:C40E:1E9A:540B:74D9 (talk) 09:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need Context section (Silicon Valley/Tech diversity, Labor Dept on gender pay gap,...)

Having a "Context" or "History" section would show some of the issues Google is dealing with externally and could explain part of the authors timing or backlash. Might want something to show (or not) Google's liberal bias (sponsorship, politics, internal,...). There are many RS for Google/SV/Tech diversity problems over the past few years. More recent is the US Dept of Labor investigation about gender pay gap (articles by: Wired, Verge). And now (coincidentally?), after this memo, there is a potential class action lawsuit by 60+ women against Google (Guardian, Forbes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by StrayBolt (talk • contribs) 21:59, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Context is a minefield. It is needed. But framing it is enormously political and pron to unlimited arguments.
I agree with the above comment that this is a slippery slope here. IMO, it makes sense to maybe touch on this but only in a very narrow context such as what Google's activities have been, at a very high level, WRT diversity in the workplace. That said, the details such as those being suggested really belong in a separate article focussing on Google and\or gender diversity in the workplace. Putting those details here will result in a dilution of this article's central topic and also lead to endless debates as what to put here. airuditious (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Grayfell:

The only primary sources from the memo author himself are the memo, a short bloomberg 8 minutes interview, and two 45 + 51 minutes youtube interviews with james Damore. (linked below)

Given the dearth of direct information of the author, and the major fights about distortions of "what he said" "he is sexists" etc. etc. full length interviews are crucial and central for anyone interested in the subject.

Links below.

If you have any strong argument fro removal, you can argue it here and we can reach an agreement. Please do not delete unilaterally

Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS. there are no serious secondary sources for those Jazi Zilber (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acting on the assumption of "distortion" suggests non-neutral speculation about his motives or character. We should not add content just to try and offset hypothetical positive or negative commentary from reliable sources. Wikipedia reflects a strong preference for secondary sources, and inflating primary content risks false balance.
So with that in mind, what information do these interviews provide? Specifically, what information do they provide about this memo? Per WP:EL, that's the goal. If this information would not, eventually, be included as sourced content in the article, than I don't really see how they belong here. Saying that these are the only primary sources about him is also presumptuous. The fallout is ongoing, and his willingness to be interviewed (by people with sympathetic views) is more about WP:RECENTISM than it is about the memo itself. If it's not ongoing, than it really should be folded into another article, right? If these are noteworthy as his only interviews, we should be able to explain that in the article, or wait until secondary sources establish these youtube clips as significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did you actually look for secondary sources? I'm finding many:
All of these mention why these are controversial choices. The source NY Mag source calls it 'alienating' and it's hard to argue with that. If Wikipedia is including it for balance or to humanize him, it's an odd choice which should be contextualized, not merely passed along as a link. Grayfell (talk) 23:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The endless spins make the original material more important. Most secondary sources here, whether on the memo, the firing, the sequence, his views etc got extremely politicised and described the each writer's inclinations.
With relatively little secondary sources that are "reliable" in the non controversial sense, I think that a couple of interviews are very useful for anyone into the subject.
The Bloomberg interview is very short, and very news style thing, while the others are in depth with a non newspaper style. Jazi Zilber (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jazi Zilber the video links are useful context. I also agree with Grayfell (!) that the sources can be contexualised with RS commentary. How RS characterise these sources is their choice, not mine, so my view is irrelevant over and above selecting Wikipedia appropriate RS. I am fine with that.

The above should not be taken as an argument for removing them altogether, just contextualising. Keith Johnston (talk) 09:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose inclusion of any of these primary sources. The content has been covered extensively by reliable secondary sources, so we should use those, as usual. The reliable secondary sources should be our guide as to what content is worthy of inclusion and what is not. Some call this spin; others call this Wikipedia policy. Editors who have a problem with how newspapers are "spinning" the story can write letters to the newspapers' editors, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editorializing vs. proper content

Hello, earlier today I had content removed that was characterized as "...editorializing..." and that needed to be "...re-written w/ clear attribution to reliable sources." After being notified of the deletion and double\triple-checking my work, I placed a message on the deleting editor's talk page letting him\her know that the removed content had at least two reliable sources (Vox, UK Business Insider) and that the content was derived directly from the articles in question. The response back to me was that I am in error, that the content was editorializing, and if I still disagree, to take it to the article's talk page - hence my post here.

Prior to posting this, I did review it all again and am still unable to see how I was editorializing. Therefore, I submit the following for your review and feedback.

If you disagree with my postion, please be instructive rather then condemning - Thanks.

Deleted content

"While many are applauding Google's termination of Damore, others are expressing concerns that discussing any controversial issue is becoming more and more difficult in the workplace. As this recent event shows, many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do. When considering the specific financial disincentives (i.e. lawsuits for hostile work environment claims, etc.) coupled with at-will work laws, companies like Google are empowered to terminate employees for nearly any reason they wish thereby illustrating that very few employee protections remain such as those outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

Select statements and support

  • "While many are applauding Google's termination of Damore" --> 1st sentence
  • "discussing any controversial issue is becoming more and more difficult in the workplace" --> 2nd paragraph
  • "many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do" --> 5th paragraph
  • "specific financial disincentives (i.e. lawsuits for hostile work environment claims, etc.)" --> 9th paragraph
  • "coupled with at-will work laws, companies like Google are empowered to terminate employees for nearly any reason they wish" --> 3rd & 4th paragraphs
  • "very few employee protections remain such as those outlined in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act" --> 4th paragraphs
  • Granted, Title VII is not mentioned specifically in the linked article but the core idea of Title VII is mentioned which is also why I added the the link to the CVA and noted specifically Title VII of that act - so the reader could easily jump there if they desired to dig deeper.

References used

  • Each of the following were included with my original content OR were already in the article.

Signed airuditious (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

I hope you don't mind that I reformatted this slightly for readability. Wikipedia is an old site and talk pages have many idiosyncrasies.
As I mentioned on my talk page, The problem is not the content, per say, but how it's being presented. This is a lot to process, so to start with, let's look at the third example listed above.
...many Americans incorrectly believe they have more rights and protections in the workplace than they actually do.
The Vox source doesn't say "many Americans..." it says that according to Angela Cornell, director of the Labor Law Clinic at Cornell University, "Sometimes Americans think they have more rights at work than they actually do ... You can be fired for any reason or no reason." This is the kind of clear attribution that would be needed to include this. We are making a broad, unverifiable statement, so we need to explain where it's coming from. It's surely an accurate statement, but that's not the only consideration.
If sources do not explicitly mention the Civil Rights Act or Title VII, than mentioning that is original research. It's an interesting point, but it absolutely does not belong until it's made by reliable sources.
I could say more, but that's a starting point. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with re-formatting the refs section - appreciated. And thanks for your feedback but I'm still not "getting it" per se. Despite the best of intention, perhaps I'm not cut out to be a Wikipedia editor...fingers crossed however. Still need a little more explanation here because it seems like you're expecting me to simply take the content I had, add the names of who said what, and we're good to go. If so, then what prevents Wikipedia from becoming nothing more than a bunch of statements with attributed names and\or quotes? airuditious (talk) 01:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These paragraphs from Wired might also be useful in this context:

California is an "at-will" state, meaning Google can dismiss an employee for almost any reason. However, Damore says that before he was fired, he filed a complaint, formally known as a charge, with the National Labor Relations Board, which administers some aspects of federal labor law. Under the National Labor Relations Act, it's against federal law to fire someone in retaliation for filing a complaint to the board, lawyers say.

...

A person at Google familiar with the matter said Damore's dismissal could not have been retaliation for his NLRB complaint because the company only learned of the complaint after Damore was fired.

Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:56, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia accounts are like Google jobs — Anyone who arrives should be welcomed to the team. I'm sure you're cut out for it. In any case, I'd say that an article about a polarized controversy will indeed sound like a bunch of attributed statements, for better or for worse. A sudden break from this tone should probably be avoided, even if a few side topics like the definition of at-will employment are indisputable. And as for talking about what "many Americans" believe, it is probably fine to say "many Americans enjoy rock climbing" without discussing specific numbers and how they were obtained. But when the statement is a little bit more accusatory than that, the burden goes up. That's my $0.02. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-sectioning

Hello, does anyone have an issue with starting a new section that has only 1 or 2 statements yet is strongly suspected will grow in the near future?

Earlier today, I moved a point mentioning Damore's filing of his complaint at the NLRB to a new section entitled "Wrongful termination concerns". The only information in the new section was Damore's firing and the claim information. The edit summarily deleted and all information tossed due to "micro-sectioning". After checking and failing to find "micro-sectioning" as an actual Wikipedia policy (perhaps I missed it), I posted a message on the editor's talk page.

I have not yet received any response but in parallel, I wanted to ask if anyone agrees this was improper?

Thanks airuditious (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure I understand, perhaps you could post your proposed change? Talk is likely best done on this talk page, not the editors.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Sides

The summary currently ends with "The memo and subsequent dismissal provoked a strong reaction from commentators on both sides."

"Both sides" is a reductive false-dichotomy and terrible writing trope. If the article weren't locked and I could edit it right now I'd at least try to tune up that line to "... provoked a strong reaction across the internet on news and social media sites." Or just delete the line.

Jbartus (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, good point. Diego (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a point though, as there reactions were of different types, rather than one way.
The uninformed reader (someone seeing a one sided source prior) might easily interpret it as the specific group reaction he was exposed to (i.e. total condemnation, or heroic support etc.) Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "both sides" refers to the wider culture wars ongoing between conservatives and the left, with liberals in the middle. Perhaps it could be better expressed through reference to RS.Keith Johnston (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goal: Objective Article

I noticed that many leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda. I ask all editors to intervene, remove emotions, and make this article as objective as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.172.44 (talk) 17:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:AGF. If you think the article is biased or "emotional", it would be more helpful to point out or cite specific passages that justify your claim. Making a vague "leftist editors are using this article to promote their agenda" statement is not constructive nor helpful in improving the article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of first amendment content

Content discussing first amendment concerns was removed because the removing editor claimed the linked reference did not state the content that was removed. Then the same editor stated that the content did probably exist in the cited reference but that it was opinion. The removing editor needs to clarify because the vast majority of Wikipedia is essentially the exact same thing that was done here - the linking to content outside of Wikipedia - no opinion by was was added. Furthermore, when those outside refs are articles from a credible publication (in this case USA Today), then the Wikipedia editors do not go out and then hunt for a root source - we state the content here and reference accordingly. If the removing editor wishes for attribution beyond the cite ref, fine - then either make that change or suggest it here. But to wholesale remove the content is lazy, disrespectful, makes everyone else's job that much more difficult. airuditious (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every comment on the 1st amendment implications of this case is opinion. That alone is not grounds for removal unless other objective tests are applied (expertise, secondary citations, etc.) James J. Lambden (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks James J. Lambden - I'm actually in the process of adding that content back in but in a revised form along with new sources I have compiled from numerous first amendment experts. airuditious (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soh's description

I added "sexual neuroscientist at York University" to Soh's description cited to this NYTimes live article [9]. There will be many opinions and it's important to distinguish opinion from expert opinion. "Journalist who writes about gender science" could equally apply to Cauterucci who has no formal expertise. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it might be a good idea to also cite a publication and\or study that Soh has participated in authoring OR is referencing in his comments. Again, MHO. airuditious (talk) 21:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re: [10]. While the opinion piece may be about the memo, the text that is being inserted into this article doesn't say anything about the memo. It just tries to argue about biological gender differences. So what? Gamergate is over that way --> Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a coat rack -- this article is not about gender studies, but about a particular controversy. I'd support removal of the current content cited to Soh. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The memo focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.
Coverage of the memo's content focuses on the claim that biology affects technical inclination.
Soh's field is not gender studies but sexual neuroscience.
Sexual neuroscience encompasses the study of the effects of biology on inclination.
She wrote an article responding specifically to the memo and addressing the author's claim that biology affects technical inclination.
The text we cite to the article concerns biological effects on technical inclination.
Please explain what part of that is a "coat rack."
James J. Lambden (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The part that didn't even mention the subject of this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is the memo racist and sexist?

The memo was not racist or sexist. He even sourced his statements with scientifically proven facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayco122 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the article does it state the memo is racist and sexist? Keep in mind Wikipedia is not a discussion forum on the topic or issues related to it; the talk page should be used to discuss improvements and issues with the article. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:No original research: We should state the different opinions, as we did.--11:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Title style

Shouldn't the title of this article be italicized? See MOS:ITALICTITLE. CIreland (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just changed it into down case. Bad idea! Now it does read like it is in WP voice. 2600:1001:B028:7AA:585E:610D:960:7DD3 (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources of reactions from 'hard scientists'

I recently stumbled upon a very detailed and thorough sort of 'rebuttal' to the so-called scientific arguments put forward by the memo's author, by a reputable evolutionary biologist. What makes her comment stand out is her emphasis on neuroscience, epigenetics and developmental biology. So far most of the scientists whose reaction was included in the article are psychologists or evolutionary psychologists. It would be interesting to see coverage of reactions from a number 'hard scientists' (pardon the misnomer which I'm using for want of a better word to encompass scientists who study the human body's 'hardware', aka neuroscientists, geneticists, developmental biologists and so on) in order to see where their current mainstream consensus is (assuming there is one). I don't know if Quora can be cited as a reliable source (probably not, or at least not secondary) so here is a link to media coverage that include (among others) Sadedin's comment, in case anyone wants to add it. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Without specifically looking at this case, Quora is more like a message board in a way. But I am not sure what is wiki policy about it. I know there are arguments for and against this piece by Sadedin. I have not looked into details Jazi Zilber (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quora consists of user generated content and hence is not a WP:RS. NYMag, by the looks of it, is, but it still needs WP:DUE weight given, remembering that NYMag can hardly be described as a scientific publication and, therefore, cannot provide a scientific opinion itself. Since NYMag's article primarily cites other publications, I would prefer it if potential cites refer to the original articles instead (i.e. the ones NYMag cites). Kleuske (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean. We can't just directly cite scientific publications and summarize their content, can we? That's what secondary sources are for, if I understand well. I found another such source citing Sadedin's reply although it doesn't focus on the content itself of the critic, only that it has been made. It would clarify things a bit more, I think, to include the stance of actual biologists like her so as to include a comprehensive coverage from as much relevant fields as possible (insofar as the memo's scientific claims are concerned), so any help or guidance on how to proceed from there is welcome.82.216.227.236 (talk) 15:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should have no problem quoting Sadedin with these two secondary sources in hand. Her post being mentioned in The Guardian gives some notability. And with that excerpt appearing in the survey that NYMag did, we can also address her argument without citing Quora. Connor Behan (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact it seems the almost entirety of the Quora thing has been cited in Forbes. With these three secondary sources I'm going to go ahead and quote her in the article. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Include Quillette

Most of the scientists in Quillette have been recited in other mass media and included here. So why not use Quillette as a source, when the Wikipedia allowed sources clearly do use it?--Rævhuld (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Poll

Discussion

If these opinions have been cited in "big newspapers" then why not use those "big newspapers" as sources? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the complete article, rather than broken sentences as newspapers usually do. News were used here as a hint of notability Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phrasing

The section above discussing Quilette has been collapsed, so I am writing this here. I have added a capsule summary of Lee Jussim's comments in Quilette. I have put his comments just after the paragraph discussing Haidt, because Jussim is a founding member of Heterodox Academy together with Haidt and some others. I have added a reference to David Brooks citing the Quilette article in his opinion column to indicate notability. Feel free to revert/edit/discuss. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 14:06, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtcrime?

What is that article doing in the 'see also' section? What does a political memo about sex differences have to do with a 1984 reference or the general Orwellian concept of getting persecuted, arrested and tortured for having a dissenting opinion from the state? Even if there was some vague point to be made about a sort of analogy with the author having to renounce his six figure salary for using a company's own message boards to broadcast a politically charged message, no attempt was made to control his thoughts - speech is what this is all about. In fact, some of the points raised by the author specifically mentions a large chunk of the Google employee base holding similar opinions - hardly mind control or thought enforcement. 37.171.236.156 (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The inclusion of that see also is inappropriate and suggests bias. It should be removed. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That whole SA section has been hijacked to push POV. For example CJK09 just restored the article on the chilling effect to the SA, making baseless accusations in their edit summary along the way. The article itself says In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction.. How in the world is this related to this memo? It's not. It's just somebody trying to cram their uninformed views into this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deny: Thoughtcrime and Chilling Effect are actually what this case was about. He was fired for stating an opinion.--Rævhuld (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, no it wasn't. Please stop being ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damore was fired from Google to create a chilling effect. Even if the firing wasn't intended to create a chilling effect, it obviously is a very chilling effect on others Jazi Zilber (talk) 08:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What?? No chilling effect after Damore firing? Googlers feel as free to say non PC now as before Damore firing? Jazi Zilber (talk) 09:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can argue that his memo was bad. But do you think that Googlers will feel free to share simpler opinions after the firing? This is what chilling effect means
He was fired from Google for attacking his co-workers. Look. Forget about it being google for a second. Suppose I run a restaurant. And one of my employees writes a "manifesto" about how the women in my restaurant are "not up to it" because of "biological differences". He then circulates it around, people get a wind of it. I find about it. What do I do? Well, first, this is a big signal that this guy is not a productive worker and is probably losing me money, because he doesn't know how to work with others. Second, even if that part is not true, he's now pissed off a bunch of my other employees so if I keep him around my employee morale is gonna go to shit, so why should I keep him? Third, this is the kind of bullshit that my restaurant just doesn't want to deal with, because our job is to make and serve food, not to serve as some kind of testing ground for gamergate/4chan social trolling experiments, so, basically, fuck him. So yeah, as a private company, that has the right to decide whom to hire and whom not to hire, I'd fire him without thinking about it twice. The problem here of course is that with a restaurant nobody'd notice, but because this is google, it became "a story".
Notice that none of this actually has anything to do with whether they're right or not. The fact they're not is just icing on the cake. It's just a sound business decision that any company that cares about making money (and that is what companies' purpose is) would do.
Also, your first sentence and second sentence above contradict each other (in the 8:56 comment).Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Volunteer Marek: With all due respect. Take the time to read the whole thing from beginning to end: https://diversitymemo.com I don't see the guy saying that women are "not up to it". There are plenty of reliable sources making the same observation:
If you can spare the time, have a look at those as well. Regards, --Andreas JN466 10:50, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is starting to get off-topic, but there are grounds to argue that the author is, in fact, disparaging his fellow female coworkers under the pretense of "pointing out sex differences". Namely, he affirms that women:
*have higher anxiety levels and lower resistance to stress,
*are innately predisposed to be disinterested in technology jobs in favor of "social" and "artistic" stuff (whatever that means),
*are selected in a discriminatory manner through diversity programs and the like.
It is not too much of a stretch to draw the underlying implications (insofar as the Google workplace is concerned) he's aiming at about women, in that they:
*are more likely not to have 'what it takes' to endure the potentially demanding working conditions at Google
*are less passionate and less enthusiastic about their job which they view more in an utilitarian way ("I'm cleaning up Java APIs at Google because it pays well, but deep down inside I really want to paint pictures of kids with horses" or something)
*are less likely to have been selected because of their ability and technical skills
So he's potentially calling into question their fit for the job, their passion for the job and their skill at the job, all at the same time. I know most of it sounds like extrapolation and maybe he really didn't mean it that way but it's not hard to imagine that a 'woman in tech' would take it like this, especially if you add an environment ripe with harassment and sexism on top of it. Same for many journalists who have been writing about the issue. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He does not affirm that. He is talking about professional preferences at a population level, not about the abilities of individuals ("women"), and he was very careful to make that clear: "Reducing people to their group identity and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap (this is bad and I don't endorse that"). One of the commentators in the links I included in my previous post mentions female-dominated professions like veterinarians and Ph.D. psychologists. In the US, 97.5% of speech-language pathologists are women, along with 90% of registered nurses, 89.2% of occupational therapists, 81.5% of social workers, 74.2 of HR managers, 70.9% of PR managers, 67.5% of psychologists, 66.5% of fundraisers, 63.2% of veterinarians, 55.7% of financial specialists, 55% of marketing specialists, 56.6% of artists, etc. If someone came along and insisted that 50% of speech-language pathologists and HR/PR managers should be men, to rid these professions of gender bias "keeping men down", I doubt anyone would object to it if someone pointed out the relevance of population-level professional preferences and their relationship to biological predispositions, or even how many men lack the social and emotional awareness to be good at these professions. And I believe they would be allowed to make that argument without being accused of stating that male veterinarians, psychologists, PR/HR managers etc. are intrinsically inferior to their female counterparts. Don't you? --Andreas JN466 12:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are missing the point. I am not talking about what he actually means, and it is indeed pointless to try to read into his clumsy style to infer his true meaning, only he could possibly know that. I am talking about what other people may have read from his piece. Communication is an art, words have weights and implications that may change depending on whom they are addressed; it appears that a number of women in tech, media outlets and other significant parts of his audience did take the aforementioned implications at face value. It does not matter how many awkwardly phrased disclaimers were added before he delivered on his matter-of-fact, I'm-just-being-rational rhetoric, the point here is that he failed to convey a global reassurance that he didn't regard his fellow female coworkers (or any woman working in an engineering related field) in low esteem, possibly due to his innate masculine deficiencies in verbal and social skills (heh). As for the list of US statistics that you are placating me with, I don't know what you're aiming at. Not only are they unrelated to the subject matter at hand (i.e. the tone of the author and how it translated into bad reactions from media outlets), but no one ever talked about the gender ratio among US speech-language pathologists or even argued about where a possible imbalance may come from, or if it was 'biological' (whatever that means). You are making an argument about sex differences to the talk page about a memo, which doesn't serve much point. There are other outlets to make your points if you so wish. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at 'chilling effect' yields "the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights". Again, how does that relate to the author having to renounce his six figure salary for using a company's own message boards to broadcast a politically charged message? Note that even the author of the memo did turn out to have a solid case in his sueing of the company (which the majority of legal experts argue is not the case), it doesn't mean that his fundamental rights to free speech (which is what I assume is at hand here) were infringed, only that he benefited from California's specific labor laws. I understand that folks may get passionnate about the issue but let's not translate that into spurious analogies in a wiki article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.169.58.127 (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Andreas, I don't really want to get into a discussion of "what Damore really meant". Suffice to say other sources don't see it that way (there's one given from Business Insider in the section right below). The qualifications and "suggestions" in the memo can easily be seen as a way of covering one's ass. Regardless, the point is that the article on the chilling effect should not be in the "See Also"s, which very often wind up as a pretty silly list in articles like this.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the above commenters description of 'chilling effect' is correct then obviously Damore's natural and legal rights weren't inhibited. Especially not his free speech rights as they do not apply to private institutions. Only the government. In any case, we should wait for the results of his labor complaint though it might get settled outside of the courts too. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen so much energy expended on such a peripheral part of an article before. Here's a simple solution: Just open an RfC on whether "Thoughtcrime" should be included in "see also". There's no real "right" and "wrong" here, so prolonged discussion is likely to just turn into a forum and not go anywhere. I can open the RfC myself if you like, and spare everyone the "someone is wrong on the internet" stage. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 13:45, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see why the addition of Chilling effect what controversial however Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) has made no attempt to justify the removal of sex differences in intelligence or especially sex differences in psychology, which are exactly what the memo alleges to be about and therefore incredibly germane to the article. I don't care what happens to chilling effect but I am strongly in favor of keeping those two. CJK09 (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The author of the memo made didn't mention sex differences in intelligence, so that would have to stay out. Sex differences in psychology, I don't know. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with sex differences in psychology. The other two don't belong here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Employee reactions inside Google

There isn't much material on this yet but it would add more depth to the article of what the employee reactions have been like inside the company. Hopefully there will be more interviews to come. I've only found one employee interview so far from an anonymous woman in Google's NY office: Business Insider: Female employee on the Google memo: 'I don’t know how we could feel anything but attacked by that'. If you find any other interviews of Google's own employees, not from high leadership positions but regular employee reactions, then let's list them here. 2001:14BA:2F8:F700:D802:BFED:222F:6628 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assange

[11] When and if Damore accepts a job with Wikileaks (do they even hire people?) you can put that info in. All there is right now is a single non-notable tweet from Assange which is clearly just trying to troll and piggy back on this controversy to put himself in the spotlight. Please stop restoring this inanity.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And putting this in the lede is especially ridiculous.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed it from the lede. I.e. I reverted the user who strangely put it there, not you. I agree with you as to the motives of Assange. But I don't think it matters. Assange and the sources discussing him in the Google memo context are notable. Connor Behan (talk) 15:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are people who are far more notable than Assange, like, uh, the president, who tweet all the time, their tweets get widespread coverage and yet we don't go including them or writing them all up. Unless the tweet by Assange has notability independent of this memo, it's WP:UNDUE and shouldn't be here.
That poll doesn't belong here either.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, if Drumpf tweets about the Google memo in particular, yes of course we will have to include it. I can take or leave the poll. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Growing Sadedin quote

At first I expected this edit to be uncontroversial, but some wiki-lawyering has taken place so I will propose it here. I plan to summarize the argument of Suzanne Sadedin with this version, which I think says the same thing more concisely. Instead of just length, my reason has to do with the sentence "many of its predictions turned out to be wildly misguided." As if predictions were thinking entities unto themselves. It's plausible that she wanted to say the predictions were wrong and therefore people are misguided in trusting them. But when we have our pick of so many quotations, we don't need to pick one with imprecise wording like this. A reader who assumes the worst could misconstrue her sentence as suggesting that it's misguided to publish the predictions of your model if they make people uncomfortable. Connor Behan (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we should not quote those at full length and detail. One would do the same for each one cited and a monstrous article will result. Those are mere summaries.
PS. I edited the first lines to remove useless Burdensome text removed. Post citation in various newspapers was used as justification to include it. Yet, this is for notes etc. The poor reader isn't supposed to suffer for it.
I have not touched the content though Jazi Zilber (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually tried to remove the first lines of 'X cited Y in Z' but it got reversed. As for the corrected version, however, I think you are sort of interpolating by conflating two arguments into one sentence and giving it a new and slightly different meaning. I don't think she is arguing that the entire field of evopsych is dubious because it relies on the nature vs. nurture dichotomy. She is arguing on one hand that the author himself relies on that, which presumably ignores recent advances made by dev. biologists and so on (I assume that research on these fields must move very quickly since epigenetics is still somewhat in infancy and imaging tech keeps progressing); and separately from that, she questions predictive arguments and justifications made by evolutionary psychologists due to bad precedents etc. This is to show different (and indeed differing) takes from different fields of expertise. 82.216.227.236 (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried something else which hopefully has "nature vs nurture" tied to Damore and not evo psych. Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the first paragraph in that section is now the coatrack. Connor Behan (talk) 06:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting people

These sources are not suitable at the moment. But perhaps we can watch to see if newspapers mention them.

Good night! Connor Behan (talk) 05:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_Chamber&oldid=795593583"