Talk:Ada Initiative

Sources

This article probably shouldn't cite the Initiative's website and press releases. Here are a few more cites worth potentially using:

• [1]
• [2]

Steven Walling • talk 22:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Mission"

By and large, we discourage mission statements, as they are generally high-minded, idealistic, and not necessarily reflective of the realities of the subject. Should this one be dumped? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Aye. Now that the dust has settled, what about rewriting this as more fitting for a hate group they were? Ada Initiative was about as repulsive as MikeeUSA on the other side of the aisle. -KiloByte (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Censorship of "rape triggers"

What about their theory of "rape triggers", which says anything even remotely related to sex (and not only) should be banned because it can potentially upset a rape victim? They have been harassing people about it, getting scheduled side talks removed from conferences, and so on. If that's the right thing to do, let's ban talking about spiders because it can upset those who suffer of arachnophobia -- and considering anything sexual to be promotion of rape is just beyond words.

Censorship, especially of the kooky sort, is a major attack against free speech. References to the Ada Initiative's behaviour at Security BSides in dec 2012 have been removed citing Wikipedia:UNDUE -- why? Something as despicable is certainly noteworthy when it's done by an organization claiming to promote cultural freedoms. --KiloByte (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Remember that WP:BLP applies to talk pages, not just article space. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

How is WP:BLP relevant here? The Ada Initiative is an organization not a person, and even if it were a person, actions done in public do not get privacy protection. So the only reason to skip this part would be the matter being not important enough, or not really relevant to the article -- which, as I argue above, is not the case here. --KiloByte (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP in no way, shape, or form trumps WP:NPOV, and removal of sourced information that happens to reflect poorly on a group or individual most certainly rises to the level of POV pushing. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

After the intense controversy surrounding the events of PyCon 2013, Adria Richards, and "Dongle-gate", it's clear that a more critical discussion of Ada Initiative's policies is absolutely necessary. Negative repercussions from these policies have now been widely reported in the media. To omit them is to misrepresent the real-world impact of the organization.

-OrinR (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

i look forward to a critical discussion in reliable sources. then we can report on it here. you can't misrepresent the sources that do not exist. Farmbrough's revenge⇔ †@1₭ 02:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Without neutral reliable sources there isn't much that can be done. So, until reliable third party sources are published that discuss TAI's concerns, they can continue to be removed from the article. SarahStierch (talk) 07:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

lol, i see in the controversy section is a sweep up of all the flaming blogosphere. also [3]; [4]. if i write on my blog how amusing this is, can i cite it? an editorial process is not censorship, although it may appear that way to the standard-less author. slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the biggest issue - the citations are really poor. Now, if the article was covered in multiple reliable sources (not blogs by those directly involved) then perhaps it'd be a different. SarahStierch (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

i do appreciate the withstraint. you know a backlash is marginal when you can't find a publication for it. reasonable people can see through the hype. slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 01:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like an explanation as to why Slashdot is considered a poor secondary source. Frankly, I think those editors that support removal of this section are gaming the system a bit here, citing some arbitrary criteria for which the sources of this criticism doesn't rise to the level of "important" secondary source. I challenge you to cite established Wikipedia policy directly on this and give your reasons. And, quite honestly, Wikipedia has never had a coherent policy about citing online sources, which leads to some huge inconstancy in sourcing between Wikipedia articles.

I'll point out the simple fact that the criticism in question has been notable enough for Ada Initiative to issue several lengthy rebuttals to such critiques on their blog. These rebuttals should, of course, be summarized here for the sake of balance, and I have every intention on working on that and getting it posted soon. I will note that blogs and other self-published sources originating from the individual or organization that is the subject of the article in question are specifically named as a valid source of information about the subject per WP:ABOUTSELF.Iamcuriousblue (talk) 21:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

slashdoot: "Posted by Unknown Lamer on Wednesday February 27" [5] it appears to be a message board. see also Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. at least the blog posts i found used their real names. i'm afraid that "people responding on their blogs" is not in the notability criteria. see Wikipedia:Notability (events). slowking^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 16:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

BruCON bit

I removed this. Neither cited source was a trustworthy third party which connected the Violet Blue incident and the events at another conference. Taking two primary sources and constructing a narrative is classic synthesis original research, which should be avoided. If someone wants to find other text to add so we can link to Violet's personal post disputing the events (perhaps just say she did so?) I think that would be fair. Steven Walling • talk 04:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional sources for Violet Blue/Ada Initiative incident

There is a claim that has been floated that all mention of the Violet Blue/Ada Initiative incident at BSides should be dropped because it is not "properly sourced". Here are some additional sources, and I believe that all of the rise above being mere self-published sources and meet the criteria of WP:VERIFY:

• http://betabeat.com/2013/03/violet-blue-ada-initiative-bsides/
• http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/did-feminists-cancel-violet-blues-sex-talk
• http://www.dailydot.com/society/violet-blue-security-bsides-sf-hackers-date-rape/

It is my intention to incorporate these into the "controversy" section of the article, expanding it as necessary, and making it more strongly sourced. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was originally removed because of WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. As WP:NOTNEWS states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." The kerfuffle over Violet Blue's presentation does not constitute "enduring notability". The section has already been removed twice, and I would support removing it again. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Iamcuriousblue, the sources you link seem to be pretty good by the standards of WP:RS. I would say they're not great, but fairly good; they're all opinion pieces, and they were all written in the immediate aftermath of an event where accurate information was apparently difficult to come by. If somebody wants to rewrite the section based on these sources, I think that could result in a decent section.

But in the absence of somebody taking the time to do that, I feel that the current section should be deleted. The only sources currently cited that could be construed as "independent" of the participants are Slashdot and CSOonline. The Slashdot piece certainly doesn't rate very high as a reliable source. The CSOonline piece is presented as an opinion piece; it's the kind of source I'd consider reasonable as a supplementary source, but not as the main source for covering a topic. In all of this I believe it's important to keep in mind not only Wikipedia's verifiability policy, but also the policy on coverage of living people -- it's important that Wikipedia present information that is factual and neutral.

Unless somebody wants to substantially rewrite the section based on better sources, I suggest we delete the section. -Pete (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

p.s. In the interest of disclosure, I consider myself a supporter of the Ada Initiative, and count several of its leaders and proponents among my friends. But that is not what motivates this suggestion; the main issue, I believe, is presenting an article the meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. -Pete (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on cleanup of the section, but I will absolutely revert any removal of this section. It is relevant information about this group and can be properly sourced, and the hairsplitting about the veracity of the sources strikes me as dodgy and, frankly, seems to be based upon ulterior motives rather than purely concern for BLP issues. You mention NPOV, but your presenting an extremely strange interpretation of it. What part of removing sourced, critical information about a group or individual represents a *neutral* point of view? That's a *favorable* point of view. It's unfortunate that some people are choosing to interpret WP:BLP as meaning a "sympathetic point of view" must always be presented rather than one that presents all information, both favorable and unfavorable, without editorial slant. I also can't help but notice that demand for removal of this section seems to come, time and again, from "friends" of Ada Initiative. Frankly, I see conflict of interest and astroturfing going on here, and this in no more tolerable from those working on behalf of a "feminist" nonprofit than it is from somebody acting on behalf of a private corporation like BP. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any response to my assertions that the section violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS? Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this issue rates a mention at least as it's triggered ongoing discussion on the issue of women in tech and how they're viewed and treated. I'm concerned as I look at the revision history that Pete has made an edit (albeit a small one) on this article which, given his statements here, seems to cross WP:COI. Martin Blank (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to believe that everyone's opinion here is based on being biased towards the Ada Initiative, I have listed the dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Kaldari (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see why a small section on this event remotely constitutes "undue weight". If there is a high degree of positive press for Ada Initiative that is not indicated by the current state of this article, the answer is to add this, not to bowdlerize information that is very much part of the organization's public record and might happen to reflect unfavorably on the organization. And, yes, as a matter of fact, I do see bias and POV pushing going on here - I don't see at as any coincidence that those who want this section fully nixed just happen to also happen to be editors from the Gendergap listserv, self-described "friends" of Ada Initiative, and so on. And I'm supposed to believe there's no conflict of interest there in such people demanding an article on Ada Initiative that's wholly laudatory. If you're going to persist in such an uncompromising course of action with regards to this article, and those on other groups and ideas you favor, prepare for a long arbitration process. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please desist with the ad hominem attacks. I would suggest focusing on the substance of the debate rather than conspiracy theories. My desire is not to have a "wholly laudatory" article; it is to have an encyclopedic article with coverage that is appropriately weighted to its significance. One week worth of he-said-she-said internet drama is not encyclopedic content. And if you want to complain about POV-pushing, I would suggest complaining to whoever initially wrote that section since it was a completely 1-sided characterization of the events. Kaldari (talk) 07:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

We all desire an encyclopedic article, however I happen to think that this incident constitutes more than "one week worth of he-said-she-said internet drama" and is a relevant part of the history of this organization. I do not mean to peddle in "conspiracy theories", but I will point out, once again, that the relationship that you and Peteforsyth (and other members of Wikimedia) have with Ada Initiative and the desire to remove information which the Ada Initiative leadership clearly sees as unfavorable represents a huge conflict of interest. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with having a mention of this, based on the secondary sources, with the primary sources given as ancillary sources. Andreas JN466 02:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the current version of the section. Compared to how it was when I commented earlier, this is more solidly focused on reporting facts without attempting to interpret or adjudicate disputes, and it is based on sources that meet referencing standards. Thanks for working on it, Kaldari. -Pete (talk) 00:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources and found the first sentence not to correspond to them, rephrased it to make it stick to facts (i.e., the fact that BSides reached out to Ada Initiative or viceversa is disputed, to say the least). Raistlin (talk) 08:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we citing the secondary sources Iamcuriousblue posted above? Andreas JN466 17:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think just because nobody's gotten to it yet. WP:SOFIXIT -Pete (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations

I just replaced some citations to an article by Bruce Byfield. This was initiated by a request from him; but I want to state clearly that his request alone isn't a good reason to take action. He supplied some additional citations, of which I used two that seemed to me to be of comparable quality: one from Marie Claire and one from ITWire. (Byfield's piece was in Datamation.) I wasn't able to find another high quality source that talks about the Ada Initiative's surveys, so I left that one intact. (Also, I made similar changes to the Valerie Aurora bio a couple months back.) -Pete (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Poor quality Bsides incident references

Why, when we have several reliable third-party sources on the Bsides incident, is a wiki page for a conference written by one of the parties involved cited twice instead of the Betabeat, Daily Dot, or Vice articles? I can't fix it because I'm one of the co-founders of the organization. Catavar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6907

Somehow managed to poke in via TOR.88.159.71.52 (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC) Edit: oh i wasnt... i suck.. privoxy is not great. Probably should use the browser bundle. At least i add some entropy.88.159.71.52 (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ada Initiative. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120213085746/http://flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf to http://www.flosspols.org/deliverables/FLOSSPOLS-D16-Gender_Integrated_Report_of_Findings.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)