Talk:Coraline Ada Ehmke/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Coraline Ada Ehmke. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Date of birth

Is it opportine to ask? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.193.56 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Opportine? Yes, it's 1971. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.53.193.57 (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.114.44 (talk)

Peacock writing style

A considerable portion of the article appears to be written in a gratuitously flattering fashion, while downplaying the controversy she has been personally involved in with regards to the promotion or even imposition of the Contributor Covenant. Perhaps a better way to address this would be to have a dedicated section on the controversies, or perhaps to simply merge this article entirely with the Contributor Covenant article. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

@BrxBrx: Do you have some sources for "the controversy she has been personally involved in with regards to the promotion or even imposition of the Contributor Covenant"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I'll grant that the sources for this controversy are niche, but that's to be expected seeing as this individual appeals to fairly niche interests. [1] [2]. Primary sources for the issue at hand are too numerous to count, as it seems there are for every "culture war" topic there is. The only reason I'm not going in and editing it is because I'm not sure where the consensus on how to present those viewpoints is. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 23:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, this seems article seems to pend a disproportionate amount of time talking about conferences she attended without any information of why they are specifically important. Further, the following seems to impart tone without being encyclopedic.

Her story was featured in a 2017 report on hush clauses and non-disparagement agreements published by CNN.[34]

Ehmke has been the repeated target of negative reporting by far-right organizations and bloggers including Breitbart News and Vox Day, and often describes herself as a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior" after being given the moniker in a Breitbart article about her joining Github.[35][36]

Ethanpet113 (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ethanpet113: Can you expand a bit on how those two sentences "impart tone without being encyclopedic"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Certainly, wikipedia isn't in the business of determining whether reporting is positive or negative, it just reports what was reported. If it said any such thing in the citations, and they were secondary sources there might be grounds for it- but having further examined these sentences, the information given is 1 not in citations given and 2 WP:UGC, so I think I'll simply check the citations and remove anything that isn't actually stated.Ethanpet113 (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for clarifying. I didn't realize the source wasn't included in that statement; I've added some. As for WP:UGC, it's acceptable to use self-published sources as citations for information about themselves. That's what it's being used for in this case; she uses that term to describe herself.

What is your concern with the CNN sentence you pasted above? Or was that accidental copy/paste? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ethanpet113: Can you please discuss your concerns with me here on the talk page instead of reverting at the article? It saves cluttering the history with back-and-forth reverts when it is a simple question to answer, and as I'm currently online I'll answer quickly. Your edit summary was There is no mention of Breitbart in any of the provided citations, nor could any but one of these citations be established to be not (1) WP:UGC, please provide (1)The Breitbart reports in question and (2), evidence that they should be seen as repeated and negative. I'm not sure you saw that I added two citations in addition to the two that were being used—did you see this edit? The Wired source says Right-wing outlets like Breitbart have published multiple stories since the launch of the Covenant, warning that “social justice warriors” are “infiltrating” open source. and the Daily Dot source says When Ehmke was hired, the far-right news site Breitbart published an article with the headline “GitHub Hires Notorious Social Justice Warrior to Work on ‘Anti-Harassment.’”. If you want to see the Breitbart articles yourself, simply Google "Coraline Ada Ehmke Breitbart". I'm not going to dignify them by linking them here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare and Jorm: Yes I saw that, I guess my edit coincide very closely but somehow did not conflict with yours, sorry about that . Regarding my more recent edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coraline_Ada_Ehmke&oldid=868738329. I have read the "many articles" as proposed by Wired, of which there are 4. You'll have to remove the space in the url since wikipedia won't actually let me post the url even for the purposes of discussion:
One of which is about her covenant https://www.breit bart.com/tech/2016/02/25/github-hires-notorious-social-justice-warrior-to-work-on-anti-harassment/

one of which is a ruby contributor commenting on her covenant https://www.breit bart.com/tech/2016/01/25/ruby-hackers-in-revolt-after-sjws-attempt-to-impose-politically-correct-code-of-conduct/ ,

and two of which are about a conferences, the first of which expresses concern that the covenant can be easily abused https://www.breit bart.com/tech/2017/01/11/sjws-tech-conference-political-diversity/ and a second which mentions her only in passing https://www.breit bart.com/tech/2017/05/30/tech-leftists-target-lambaconf-over-alleged-red-pilling-speaker/

Despite the reputation of the "news source" for being vile and unreliable these article do not seem to present Ehmke as herself as negative, more-so the document which she authored. The news magazine Wired characterizes these articles as having unwarranted concerns. But does not go beyond that in the cited where it is mentioned once in the statement "Right-wing outlets like Breitbart have published multiple stories since the launch of the Covenant, warning that “social justice warriors” are “infiltrating” open source. Those fears are misplaced." Because of the market share Breitbart holds the headlines of the articles look like this, but if you look at does not actually direct negativity at Ehmke so it is not a negative report against the, only the work she helped produce. True their titles are salacious(they're a "news" business after all) and their publisher unreliable, though I do not believe in this instance that they have been correctly represented in this wiki article.

Ehmke has described herself as a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior" after being given the moniker in a Breitbart(the first one in the list above) article about her joining Github, and in spite of the fact that she describes the news outlet's use of the term as a negative term.[3] I would tend to agree, but again the article in question is targeted at the covenant, and does not seem to be a personal attack.

Second the use of the words "repeated negative reporting" while technically correct in that it is repeated(if we accept that it is also negative) are clearly being used in the same way an advertiser might say over 100 different products as meaning 101 products. It does not impart more information and appears to primarily mask that the true number of substantial mentions comes to a grand total of 3, and those mentions were not especially volatile. I don't happen to agree at all with right wing dogma, but I also think that the paragraph in question is almost entirely statements not in the citations give, and I am almost certain it was so worded intentionally in that manner as to create outrage. Since Breitbart is so notoriously unreliable it is currently blacklisted as a source. Thus I cannot use the original article bodies to prove the claims specious, nor do I support the use of Wikipedia as a platform for manufacturing outrage. I thought thus that deletion was the more suitable action, but you can look at the above revision and give some comments.

Third in my earliest comment I had concern over the WP:UGC and the mention of the outlet Vox which I could not find in the cited or even the UGC. I accidentally wrote Britebart in that instance. Ethanpet113 (talk) 04:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Your opinion of the tone of the Breitbart pieces is not relevant for the purposes of the article, though, even if it were allowed as a source. Daily Dot has said that Breitbart has "condemned" Ehmke, so the "negative" terminology is appropriate. I'd be willing to change "repeated negative reporting" to "several negative articles" or similar, if you'd prefer? As for Vox Day, I'm also not sure where that came from so I removed it. (As an aside, Vox Day and Vox are very different). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:My argument is that I personally in no way disagree with the assessment that the title of the Breitbart articles were negative, and that Ehmke is cited as believing them to be negative, thus I would allow the statement "Ehmke finds Breitbarts use of the term SJW to be a negative, but has nonetheless adopted it as a moniker" as being correct- but the statement of "several negative reports" to be incorrect as that would be, WP:Synth of the feeling of the DailyDot article and the Wired Article, without having anyone to attribute it to. As a wikipedia editor I and allergic to unattributable statements because wikipedia reports on reports and isn't allowed to judge as an impartial observer, pursuant to WP:NPOV WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Even if the BreitBart, article was obvious irredeemable dogma, I would still probably insist out of principle, that a reliable secondary source call them out. Ethanpet113 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
<popcorn.gif watching Ethan thinking he's schooling GorillaWarfare about the rules of Wikipedia>--Jorm (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wired has also portrayed the articles as negative, saying "Right-wing outlets like Breitbart have published multiple stories since the launch of the Covenant, warning that “social justice warriors” are “infiltrating” open source." GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare:@Jorm: I'm sorry I don't take your meaning. I can't tell whether you are agreeing and enjoying the show, because you're such a senior editor and you know the rules, or you are some some way passing judgement because you fundamentally disagree (it might help if there was actually a GIF there). I find when editing it is helpful to cite policy. Regarding your quote of Wired, they did not (expressly) portray it as negative, that's just what the editor wrote. They like wikipedia seem have reported neutrally the opinion of Breitbart, without imparting their own bias(well done them). Then they stated their opinion that Breitbart's fears are misplaced, that's not a critique, that's just a report(again doing a good job to disagree, but calling out the statements as unduly negative). If my position is still unclear suppose by analogy that you think that an all powerful man in the sky will pass judgement on you when you die, or you might say that the other guys believe in the a false prophet of the man in the sky, or you might hold that neither of those beliefs could be true. Regardless if you read someone else's single line summary text of the bible or the quran, you would not automatically impute that they were portraying it as negative, simply because it portrays the beliefs of some groups of individuals you happen to disagree with. Ergo since the original body of the Wired article having only said (again he quoted) Right-wing outlets like Breitbart have published multiple stories since the launch of the Covenant, warning that “social justice warriors” are “infiltrating” open source. Those fears are misplaced. which again he reiterated, are (1) about some SJWs wherein Ehmke is not expressly mentioned (2) About the published work of Ehmkw and a hardline refutation, and (3)the reporters are entitled to believe that the Covenant poses a credible and valid threat to the stability of FOSS, and Wired is not explicitly against this. Then as editors we can not make a blanket and unattributed statement about the value of those statements. Please provide useful input regarding why you do or do not agree, with the above instead of just watching me try to reach consensus with a brick wall. Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
It is not reasonable to interpret the Wired article saying Breitbart is discussing the Contributor Covenant and SJWs and try to pretend Ehmke is not one of the people being discussed, especially when the Breitbart articles back that up. It's also not reasonable to interpret "SJWs infiltrating" FOSS as anything other than a negative statement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Code of Conduct and Linux

[redacted] "This is a classic example of how a few offended people, who never contributed a single line of code to the project, tried to oust its core contributor." Very interesting stuff. Thought I'd throw this into the mix in case anyone else is interested in improving the Article by including the controversies, etc... regarding Linux.Tym Whittier (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not a chance that that article prattling on about "SJWs" can be used as a source here, which you should know. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
He knows. He just wants the link to appear on the talk page, allowing him to skirt the BLP rules. I've redacted the link.--Jorm (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Not an Open Source advocate

The article says “Coraline Ada Ehmke is a […] open source advocate”. She's not. She's an advocate of “ethical source”, an opposition to Open Source that she has created. A fundamental principle of Open Source is that anyone is allowed to use the software for any purpose. Ethical Source instead allows placing arbitrary restrictions preventing the software from being used by people the author doesn't like or for purposes the author doesn't like. I would correct the article myself, but unfortunately someone has locked it. – Chokladkaka (talk) 23:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source that states this? If not, there's no way it can be added to the article.--Jorm (talk) 23:41, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
The source is the definition, which is signed with her name, and she endorses it on her own website. – Chokladkaka (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. That's a primary source. Your interpretations of what it is aren't relevant.--Jorm (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been participating in open source since the late 1990s, and I have created dozens of open source tools and libraries. I created the first and most widely adopted code of conduct for open source projects in the world. I am critical of the power mechanisms inherent in open source, and the work that you are referencing is part of my effort to change open source for the better.– Coraline Ada Ehmke
Ethical Source takes away the inherent, non-exclusive freedom of the entire idea of Open Source, you are creating the exact opposite of Open Source itself. You should not claim that you are "changing open source for the better", that is extremely misleading and biased towards your own interpretation of Open Source.Qnirz (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Changing Open Source isn't the same as proposing an alternative that is in a fundamental aspect the opposite of Open Source. – Chokladkaka (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It may be unfair of me to say she's not an Open Source advocate. A person can be an advocate of two incompatible ideas at the same time. But I think it should be made clear that she's an advocate of Ethical Source, and that Ethical Source is incompatible with the requirements of Open Source. – Chokladkaka (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Please come back with a reliable source that says this. Until then, nothing will happen.--Jorm (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I understand that I brought up some details that aren't directly stated by any sources, however, adding that she's an Ethical Source advocate, without removing the statement that she's an Open Source advocate, and without adding a comparison between Ethical Source and Open Source, has official sources already. – Chokladkaka (talk) 00:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
If they exist, please provide them. Primary sources are not acceptable.--Jorm (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
It is mentioned that she is the founder of the Organization for Ethical Source on her webpage: https://where.coraline.codes/ I think this is sufficient.Qnirz (talk) 14:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Primary sources are perfectly fine. See for yourself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary D-b (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Suggesting that she is an ethical source advocate and that this necessarily invalidates that she is an open source advocate, is interpretation. We also should not use primary sources to contradict reliable independent sources, which largely describe her as an open source advocate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the policy on primary sources. I guess we'll have have to let this wait until someone checks secondary sources. Thanks for the explanation. – Chokladkaka (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Are there any sources to suggest she is, indeed, an open source advocate? Because so far it looks unsourced and, although primary sources are available, they are not provided (nor would they be enough). Otherwise, I suggest the claim to be removed.--Mago Mercurio (talk) 21:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
It is sourced in the article body. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
The only claim that she is an open source advocate is in the top of the article. The rest of the article does prove she is an open source developer, but that's not the same thing (or, at least, we have no sources saying they are the same thing), so the claim is unsourced. --Mago Mercurio (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
She self-describes as an open-source advocate, people widely describe her as such, and basically every citation used here describes her extensive work in and to benefit open source, but I have added an additional inline citation from a report that calls her an "open-source advocate" verbatim so that we can hopefully put this conversation to bed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
She self-describes as an open-source advocate, but that's not enough. We also have sources to say that she stands for Ethical Source, but that, according to this discussion, wasn't enough, as it's based on primary sources. People widely descibe her as such, but that's not a reference. As for her work in open source, she also literally created Ethical Source, and extensive work in open source does not imply being and open source advocate. Now, I agree there is a source now, but if you also think she describing herself, widely, as an open source advocate was enough, I don't see why one shouldn't also mention Ethical Source for the same reason. This is the website: https://ethicalsource.dev/ it was created by her, so it's a primary source, but so is her describing herself as an open source advocate. I think primary sources should (an are) enough when talking about the source itself. Although Ethical Source isn't as widely known, her critique of the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative should be noticed, as they can be relevant information for a reader. --Mago Mercurio (talk) 10:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
It is the combination of those three facts that makes the "open-source advocate" claim non-controversial. To be clear, I do not think that self-describing alone is sufficient for a claim to be included in an article—people describe themselves as all sorts of things. If you've got reliable, independent sources discussing her being an "ethical source advocate" and what that is, by all means present them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)