FWIW as an ally I find some of the subjective labels, such as calling Chad's letter a "hit piece" to be flame bait, and a distraction from the real issues involved.  I also disagree entirely with the "Lessons," which seems to me to be a complete non-sequitor. The authors/editors are welcome to change or not, but these comments lead me to dismiss most of this wikia. 14:53, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

@anon: your concern trolling is duly noted. -RickScott (talk) 17:07, June 20, 2014 (UTC)

Can this either be substantiated or removed? It's complete heresay:

"Later the same week, Whitacre privately distributed a draft of a third blog post, described as again criticising individual activists, to those same activists for comment, despite prior requests from them to cease all contact. He was later the same day reported to have decided to not publish his third post." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please familiarize yourself with our editing guidelines. Monadic (talk)

If I understand the editing policies here (I just read them), lies or heresay can be printed as fact, because you don't take an NPOV, you take a feminist point of view. That implies that feminism involves lies or hearsay otherwise you would recognize that incorrect information (whether it supports a feminist viewpoint or not) doesn't belong in an article of any merit. -- 03:55, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

You have read the editorial guidelines (for which I thank you), but not understood them. Perhaps I can clarify.
NPOV properly applies to opinions and analysis, not facts. We convey the facts as accurately as we can ascertain them—there's no such thing as "feminist facts" and "non-feminist facts".
Having gained our best understanding of the facts at hand, we analyse and interpret those facts from a feminist perspective—one which is informed by the substantial research, scholarship, and critique that the field encompasses. For instance, if a woman is harassed by a male colleague, her supervisor may deny that sexism played a role, explaining the incident in other ways: "He's just a jerk"; "He's not good with people"; "Are you sure you aren't imagining it", etc. A feminist perspective, however, draws on the considerable research documenting gendered patterns of harassment in the workplace, and points out that this incident is likely part of the larger pattern—that the woman's gender probably played a significant role in how her colleague elected to treat her.
What you actually take issue with is our approach to matters addressed by Wikipedia's two other core content policies, namely Verifiability and No Original Research. Our editorial guidelines, which you so kindly read, state (emphasis added):
While citations are preferred wherever possible, we do not require them. Much of our wiki is primary source material, sometimes added anonymously in order to avoid backlash against the whistleblower. Original research is welcome.
To take but one example, harassment and abuse often occur in ways which leave no artifact save the accounts of those involved. Turning our back on these accounts would eliminate our ability to document what happened and undermine our work. Moreover, in the face of a society which tries to silence marginalized people and casts them as liars when they talk about their actual lives, we push back against this erasure by respecting their integrity, taking them at their word, and treating the facts, as they describe them, as facts. This may offend some people's utopian notions of epistemological purity, but in a world where speaking truth while female can invite significant retribution, this is what we have.
On the topics of truth, fact, whom we presume to be telling the truth, and whom we presume to be lying, you may find some of the articles linked from the Innocent until proven guilty page to be illuminating: specifically, Christie Koehler's post on Community Safety, and Jill Filipovic's article The ethics of outing your rapist.
Finally, and separately from all of the generalities above: I can affirm that the information described as "heresay" (sic) comes from an impeccable source, and so am content to leave the description of events as they are. Since nobody has deigned to present any evidence to the contrary, I consider the matter closed. RickScott (talk) 18:01, September 4, 2014 (UTC)

"The gittip crisis is an example of the way in which men in tech only support meritocracy when it favors themselves."

This doesn't look well written, it seem making generalities about the men in tech which is not the message, right? (Please correct me if I missundestood the sentence) 00:35, November 2, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what your question is, but if you participate further in the wiki, please familiarize yourself with our editorial guidelines. Thanks. Monadic (talk) 20:38, November 3, 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this page adequately explains how a conflict over "radical transparency" ended up as a lesson on meritocracy. 15:43, December 17, 2014 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this wiki page, and you are welcome and encouraged to make it better (within the guidelines at Meta:Editorial guidelines, of course)! Thanks in advance! Monadic (talk) 17:07, December 17, 2014 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.