Fred Bauder, I like black people but ... Options

[tarantino]

In response to the question "Why American Wikimedian community is exclusively white?" on the mailing list, Fred says:

The short answer: Wikipedia editors are volunteers and African-Americans
rarely volunteer.

The medium answer: African-American editors often edit only articles
which relate to African-American and do that in a point of view way.

The long answer: large blocks of African-American are oppressed,
unemployed, poorly educated, and computer illiterate. Those that are
educated and prosperous tend to be too busy, and as said, are not in the
habit of volunteering.

"Wow. Maybe you can follow Phoebe's example and cite some evidence?"

A reaction like this is expected to any honest straightforward
observation that is not politically correct. I lived in the Five Points
neighborhood of Denver for yeara. I like Black people, but there are
issues.

[Jon Awbrey]

On the Internet no one can tell yer a Dawg.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

In response to the question "Why American Wikimedian community is exclusively white?" on the mailing list, Fred says:

The short answer: Wikipedia editors are volunteers and African-Americans
rarely volunteer.

The medium answer: African-American editors often edit only articles
which relate to African-American and do that in a point of view way.

The long answer: large blocks of African-American are oppressed,
unemployed, poorly educated, and computer illiterate. Those that are
educated and prosperous tend to be too busy, and as said, are not in the
habit of volunteering.

"Wow. Maybe you can follow Phoebe's example and cite some evidence?"

A reaction like this is expected to any honest straightforward
observation that is not politically correct. I lived in the Five Points
neighborhood of Denver for yeara. I like Black people, but there are
issues.

What Fred should have done: just cite evidence.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

[Abd]

A reaction like this is expected to any honest straightforward observation that is not politically correct. I lived in the Five Points
neighborhood of Denver for yeara. I like Black people, but there are issues.

Someone from the Foundation should grab this guy with a shepherd's hook and pull him off the stage before he sticks his foot deeper into his mouth.

It's not about "politically correct." It is about blatant racism. "Black people," plainly considered as if they were alike, a unit, so that one will have the same feelings about all. Or even most.

And as if his experience with people in one neighborhood says much of anything about a people in general, and as if race were a reality, anyway.

The question was a tough one, in fact, and it would have been far smarter to say "I don't know, we should really look into that," or maybe "I have no way of telling if an editor is black or not," or anything that didn't reveal the utter stupidity lurking under the placid surface. On the other hand, I suppose we can be grateful that he was frank. Or Fred, as the case is.

I like black people too. Especially my daughter. When I was young, it was a common question, "Would you want your daughter to marry one of them?" People actually felt free to ask that. Times have changed, but racism still lurks underneath. I did not imagine, however, that one day, I'd have a double answer to give.

"My daughter is one of 'them, as you might think if you see her, but she is unlike anyone you know." As is, in fact, every individual, especially if we are talking about the social convention/illusion that is race.

And

"Well, if he's a nice guy...." (And I have two "white" daughters and one born in China.)

Or, today, it might be woman, I suppose. Times have, indeed, changed. Good thing, too. Fred, wake up, your old road is rapidly fadin'.

On the other hand, people with red hair....

[Abd]

What Fred should have done: just cite evidence.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

Problem is, the evidence doesn't support his answer.

Among the major race and ethnicity groups, whites continued to volunteer at a
higher rate (28.3 percent) than did blacks (20.2 percent), Asians (19.0 per-
cent), and Hispanics (14.7 percent). Of these groups, the volunteer rate of
blacks and whites rose in 2009. Among blacks it rose by 1.1 percentage points,
driven by an increase in the volunteer rate of black women.

That thing about "blacks don't volunteer" simply is not true. There is a reduced rate, in general, but editing Wikipedia is an activity that is common for youth, and, indeed, there may be a higher percentage of unemployed editing Wikipedia -- or unemployable! It's the kind of activity that one, if inclined, can fit into spare time, at one's own convenience.

Not that it necessarily stays that way once one is hooked.

No, I think the answer isn't so simple. And I have no idea what the racial balance of Wikipedia editors is. I'll say that I don't remember seeing anyone who "looked black" at WikiConference New York. Given how many people were there, there is something odd about that.

Maybe black people are smarter than white people. Culturally, of course!

(I.e., "black" is a cultural identity, strongly associated with cultural background in some contexts, such as American society, and very sloppily. Culture might make people quicker to recognize a scam and avoid it, whereas us white boys just fall right into it, drinking the free Kool-Aid, happily believing in the dream and free pizza. For a while, until it becomes entirely too obvious. Most of my friends, if I talk about the reality of Wikipedia, say, "What made you think it would be any different? Why did you bother?" Women, especially, I'd say, in my experience, think it's totally insane to engage with a bunch of disagreeable jerks. Why?)

(I come up with some feeble answers, like, "Because it's there." "I couldn't know for sure until I tried." But the reality is probably darker.)

[carbuncle]

I hope someone mentions the lack of non-white penises on Wikimedia Commons.

(IMG:http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6454/givesomethingback.jpg)

[A User]

Maybe black people are smarter than white people. Culturally, of course!

One could argue that smart people avoid volunteering for Wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Maybe black people are smarter than white people. Culturally, of course!

That would explain why so few of them edit Wikipedia.

A reaction like this is expected to any honest straightforward
observation that is not politically correct. I lived in the Five Points
neighborhood of Denver for yeara.

I think that must have been the period where he met Chip Berlet, about which he later bragged on some arbcom discussion page.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[Abd]

Maybe black people are smarter than white people. Culturally, of course!

One could argue that smart people avoid volunteering for Wikipedia (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

My point.

[taiwopanfob]

That thing about "blacks don't volunteer" simply is not true.

Well, that's not exactly what Bauder said. But I know what you are getting at.

We can add some more numbers to the ones given by the source Milton cites:

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

White: 80% of population. Black: 13% of population.
White: 30% volunteer. Black: 22% volunteer.

Given 100 people chosen from the entire population, we can expect that there will be .80*.30*100 = 24 white volunteers and 0.13*0.22*100 = 3 black volunteers. So in a room full of volunteers things are going to look rather lop-sided. Mind you, this ~8:1 ratio doesn't look as bad when compared to the normal population, it's ~6:1. Would it be noticeable to anyone actually present? Could you tell, by eye alone, if you were in a room of people chosen randomly from the population in general and one chosen from volunteers?

My prediction -- completely baseless though it may be -- is that these aggregate statistics are concealing an uglier dynamic: as you go from organization to organization, the white:black ratio is going to swing from one extreme to the other. N:epsilon here and delta:M there, with a thinly populated middle. (Would it be symmetric though?)

If this view is right, then Wikipedia is probably one of many N:epsilon volunteer ghettos. It also suggests that there is little Wikipedia can do about it, as this is all completely external to the project, the result of hundreds of years of social/economic baggage. The bullshit identity politics hasn't really helped at all.

[tarantino]

What Fred should have done: just cite evidence.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

According to the most recent statistics, black women volunteer nearly as often as white men. Hispanics are are also separated out in the results, though they may be black, white, brown or blue.

[thekohser]

I'll bet the media is going to have a field day with this.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I'll bet the media is going to have a field day with this.

"Genitalia" is misspelled.

edit: Also, "Media" is plural.

This post has been edited by It's the blimp, Frank:

[CharlotteWebb]

Actually, one runs a non-negligible risk of being blocked for editing while black. I think situations like may discourage users from identifying as black (excepting those who are trolling to begin with).

It reminds me of this sordid incident, in which the bottom-rate admin Rjd0060 blocked an editor 24 hrs. for using the word "bigot" (in response to being called "black bastard" and "nigger" among other sweet nothings). Rjd later then extended it to 72 hrs. for contempt-of-cop.

Also, P.C. speaks about P.C.:

However the point is demonstrated in Wikipedia where from Jimbo down there are far too many people who like to act like the primmest of schoolma'ams from the most stereotyped of films and react in a shocked manner when someone dares to use blunt language to describe bigots and other assorted vermin. WP:CIV and WP:NPA are all very well when dealing with good faith contributors but, despite being told otherwise by the Great Leader and his sycophants, I still maintain that WP:IAR wins when it comes to dealing with blatant cases of bad faith. The failure of the likes of Rjd0060, Jimbo and their ilk to consider why people ventilate their anger at assorted trolls and bigots demonstrates an over-estimation of the value of surface civility as compared to digging out the genuinely malicious and disruptive.

The foregoing is certainly a better answer than Fred gave.

[thekohser]

I'll bet the media is going to have a field day with this.

"Genitalia" is misspelled.

edit: Also, "Media" is plural.

Sleep deprived.

[TungstenCarbide]

I'll bet the media is going to have a field day with this.

Brilliant. Elegant in its simplicity. Easy to read. Says a lot with very few words. Adb and Ottova should both read and study this article.

[Milton Roe]

What Fred should have done: just cite evidence.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

According to the most recent statistics, black women volunteer nearly as often as white men. Hispanics are are also separated out in the results, though they may be black, white, brown or blue.

True. But Hispanics are underrepresented on WP also. As are women.

Though this study separates out differences in sex, ethnicity, and education, it doesn't say what happens when all three factors, which are doubtless synergistic, are working against you. That happens in volunteering and it happens especially on Wikipedia, where the nature of the internet and the social interaction drives off the women who are the core of volunteeer efforts everywhere ELSE in the world. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) So the whole thing is basically predictable.

The only question is WHY the influences of ethnicity and education work against volunteering (either in life or on the net). Perhaps education is a proxy for free time (much like the idea that life is a shit sandwich). Perhaps ethnicity is here functioning only as a proxy for socioeconomic status (something Bauder said, basically). We can't even begin to sort all this out except with a study large enough to run a multivariate analysis to control for proxy associations that we suspect. Of course, such data never give you the proxy associations you DON'T expect.

I think it's accepted that ethnicity determines a lot about how people spend their spare time. For example, to get personal like Bauder, I've talked about some of my visual addictions: Burning Man and scuba diving. African-Americans are rare at the first, and nearly non-existent at the second-- far more rare than on the ski slopes. I remember maybe ONE African American passenger-diver in my whole ten years doing it, and that was in California waters. In the Caribbean, Japanese are more common than African-Americans, except among dive-masters (the professional sport divers who making a living by lead groups off the boat to show them the local underwater attractions; in the Caribbean these are likier to be black or Hispanic than Caucasian).

So what's up with this? Scuba is NOT that expensive a sport. Expenses in the Caribbean are very middle-class, especially if you rent equipment. I have to conclude that this is one of those things that happens because it starts out socioeconomic and then just feeds on itself. Once upon a time it was golf and tennis that were white man's games; no more. Scuba's also on the list of things that Americans haven't come to "class-terms" with, even though the time for it is long past.

[Somey]

The long answer: large blocks of African-American are oppressed,
unemployed, poorly educated, and computer illiterate. Those that are
educated and prosperous tend to be too busy, and as said, are not in the
habit of volunteering.

Yeah, he definitely should have stopped on the "medium" answer.

I mean, it isn't just that they tend to be smarter about such things... I mean, who could possibly blame black people, especially in the US, for wanting to get paid for their work? Unless you have no concept of history whatsoever, of course...

Amazing.

[Peter Damian]

My impression is that the Turks in Germany are mostly manual workers. Not
that they are stupid or anything; its more a matter how how they see
themselves. Blacks in America, if in a perverse, self-defeating mode
regard intellectual endeavors such as reading as "White".
Fred Bauder
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/062496.html

Fred Bauder wrote:
> [a bunch of inflammatory comments]
... and an entire mailing list facepalms. Good grief, Fred.
MZMcBride
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/found...ber/062502.html

[A Horse With No Name]

(And I have two "white" daughters and one born in China.)

Hmmm...this part of the conversation deserves further consideration. Can we get some photos, please? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

(I.e., "black" is a cultural identity, strongly associated with cultural background in some contexts, such as American society, and very sloppily.

Well, there are also "black people" in Europe, the Caribbean, Latin America, Africa and Australia. Is Fred talking about African Americans, or every demographic in the African diaspora? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)