
Some of the ways that GitHub sexism study misconstrued GitHub norms - exolymph
http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/02/12/before-you-get-too-excited-about-that-github-study/#comment-325423
======
AndrewUnmuted
> 6) True “insiders” would usually not be making pull requests as they would
> have commit access to the repo.

Whenever I've used Github professionally, I've been encouraged to make commits
to a separate branch and then make a pull request when it's time to merge the
code into testing or master branch. Even though I have commit access, I still
make pull requests routinely.

Am I doing it wrong?

~~~
ryanmcbride
Nope. I've always committed to a branch and merged with master later.
Committing straight to master is a disaster waiting to happen.

------
zck
I don't find this especially convincing. Some of the issues here are
reasonable things to look at; some aren't.

>1) I am surprised that there are only 20x more PRs by men. I would say it’s
more like 100-200x more men on GitHub then women.

So they're comparing data (which may be erroneous, but _is_ actual data), with
a feeling: "I would say". And the data types are even different! The study
compared the ratio of pull requests between genders; this person quibbles over
the ratio of users between genders.

>2) But the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to
medium tech company. So this study is possibly comparing mostly professional
women with mostly hobbyist men.

Perhaps. It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually"
isn't based on data.

>4) In my experience a lot of people on GH with feminine sounding names are
actually men from Eastern Europe (Sasha, Nicola, etc) or India (Sandy, Sunny,
etc).

This is a complaint against a methodology that the study didn't use. From the
study
([https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf](https://peerj.com/preprints/1733v1.pdf)):

>...we took a different approach – linking GitHub accounts with social media
profiles where the user has self-reported gender.

You can say this wasn't a big enough ratio (they identified 35% of users'
genders this way), or that people will report incorrect data, but if you're
talking about "feminine sounding names", you're not addressing this article.

Point five has nothing to do with gender. Perhaps there's an unstated point
there.

Point seven is easily testable; points eight and nine are testable, but not as
easily.

~~~
Chris2048
> It would be interesting to see data here. Again, saying "are usually" isn't
> based on data.

Why? They're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs
data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on
them.

You are right that they didn't use names to determine gender though, which
makes this a little suspect - did The author read the study?

It does mean, though, that the sample is further focused on developers who are
on G+, who use the same email address, and who identify their gender. This
would potentially allow for even more confounding factor if not investigated.

Whether or not a sample is representative is not an unimportant question, and
with conclusions like this, need to be considered a little more...

~~~
vannevar
_Why? They 're suggesting the data doesn't support the claim - They only needs
data of their own if they had their own claim. The burden of proof is not on
them._

This isn't a trial, it's an argument. And regardless of context, you should
support your argument with facts, not pure speculation. The entire article is
completely devoid of supporting evidence. There's nothing wrong with saying
that the original study lacked evidence (if that's true), but making up your
own facts without either citing a source or acknowledging that they're just
speculation is not valid criticism.

~~~
Chris2048
"Burden of Proof" isn't just a legal term:

[http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof](http://ddo.wikia.com/wiki/Burden_Of_Proof)

vs:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_burden_of_proof)

> There's nothing wrong with saying that the original study lacked evidence

To show a study "lacks evidence" you need to show where it is lacking. Any
plausible hypothetical not refuted by the study evidence, but also not
compatible with the study conclusion, is proof of this.

> making up your own facts

Which facts? A statement preceded by "I would say" is one _not_ presented as
fact, but explicitly as _opinion_.

~~~
vannevar
Legalistic arguments over the burden of proof aside, I stand by my assertion
that you should support an argument with facts. And a statement like " _But
the women that are there are usually always employed by some small to medium
tech company._ " doesn't sound like an opinion being offered. I'm not saying
the author was morally wrong to make his statement, only that it falls far
short of something worth being posted on HN. If he'd taken the extra time to
verify some of his opinions, I'd feel differently.

~~~
Chris2048
In the context of a plausible hypothetical alternative, that unverified claim
still has value.

People post their opinions on HN all the time, and 'verify' is a problematic
concept - what tools do we have to verify something? WE're software devs, not
statisticians, and and quasi-scientific, slapdash case can be made to people
who lack those critical skills.

TLDR; Most devs lack the qualifications to 'verify' anything statistical...
Not that that will stop them from assuming they're "smart" enough to figure it
out anyway...

