On Notes for conference organizers: It does sound like absurd political correctness and not feminism, but I think that is common in the US. I might only be reacting to the formulation, in my taste it would be better to simply tell Conference presenters to live up to a professional standard! That here is however a good idea: "You might consider allowing any speaker who is concerned about this the opportunity to discuss it and review their talk with a program committee member. "
Also, on Reacting to inappropriate content: It is good to voice "dissent"/complaints directly after a talk, from audience or from organizers. But it's important to not turn it into an inquisition either way, it doesn't help to convince. Also, condemning organizers or forcing them to apologise is beside the point -- organisers expect grown-up professional attendees, that have to be responsible for their own actions! --ulrik
- I assume by "grown-up professional attendees" you mean specifically "grown-up professional speakers"? Otherwise I'm not clear on what you're arguing: what are the audience's actions that they need to be responsible for? Assuming you meant speakers though: well, it depends. I don't personally condemn conference organisers for having such a presentation unless they then leap to the presenter's defence whole-heartedly with an important exception: there are some geek community members who are well known as liking the controversy/attention/frission of being "edgy" and "politically incorrect" (see He's just like that). Conference organisers who knowingly take on or especially invite such speakers, at least without discussion the limits of acceptability with them, are expecting grown-up professional speakers against the evidence and should be criticised for this. Thayvian 02:03, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Qualification of the account of Stallman's remarks at GCDS
I don't think we need the qualification that Lefty's account was contested in the comments on his blog. It looks like there is only one (anonymous) comment which questioned this, and in all likelihood the commenter was not present at the event. Lefty was, and his account has been corroborated by many other attendees (myself included), and can be considered credible without qualification.
I'm going to go ahead and remove that bit from the page for clarity, but feel free to discuss further here if you disagree.
Mdz 10:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
- No especial disagreement, I think I read the comments quite early when it was unclear how the numbers came up. Thayvian 11:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
the reference to LCA 2001 is exceptionally vague. I was at that conference and didn't hear of any sexualised or harassing circumstances. Are you sure it wasn't LCA 2007 (the Reiser incident) that was meant?
220.127.116.11 13:49, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Sexualized presentation -> Porny presentation
I renamed "Sexualized presentation" to "Porny presentation", to follow Wikipedia's "be bold" editing guideline. Sex is a gender-neutral activity, but porn prototypically features naked women for men's consumption, which makes it an issue of gender and power imbalance, not prudishness. I also think "porny presentation" is a clearer term for what is being discussed, since "sexualized presentation" is pretty abstract.
Restructure 15:25, March 26, 2011 (UTC)