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

[Abd]

(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?

They are seven and nine years old, respectively. I'd love to put up photos, but ... times have changed. Sorry. They are, however, spectacularly beautiful, people rave over them. Smart, talented, etc., etc. Kind and considerate, and the Ethiopian smiles like the sunrise, something that she did inherit from her people, I visited the region, and she was raised by them for her first three years.

Can you tell that I'm a proud papa?

The Asian girl was raised by me from 10 months old, so the African may have gotten the better deal.... but, well, you win some and lose some. There are some advantages both ways.

Ah. I have two other daughters. Adults, ages 40 and 35. One is very happily married, the younger one just came back from India, she's divorced. Good luck. I will not provide any details at all about my grandchildren, except that there are five going on six. I am "exposed" to the possibility of great granchildren, but probably not quite yet!

(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?

figuring out what Bauder is talking about is not a fruitful enterprise, since I think he has not really thought about all this. The tipoff is his continual reference to "black people" as if they were some monolithic entity. At worst. At best, he qualifies it a little, i.e., "those who harm themselves by thinking of reading as 'white.'" (something like that.)

It is still stereotypical thinking. There can be some value to that, but what Bauder is betraying is his underlying attitudes. Example: his assumption that successful blacks are not inclined to volunteer. The reality is that they do, (using demographic definitions of "black") but they volunteer elsewhere, on average.

This whole "don't volunteer" argument was completely bogus, as shown by the statistics. The ratio, even with what may understate some kinds of volunteer work, was 28% for "white" and 20% for "black." So ... that could not explain the vast under-representation of apparent black participation.

However, there is another assumption that some are making: that participation in wikiconferences is a cross-section of Wikipedia editors. It may be highly warped. Otherwise, how the hell do we know what racial grouping editors belong to? You know my "race" only because I've disclosed it, it's common that it is assumed that I'm black -- Lomax is not an uncommon black family name in the U.S. -- or that I'm Muslim by birth -- which would not say anything about "race," since Muslims could be Asian, Arab, Bosnian, etcl, or Nigerian, etc.

The explanations will be cultural, I'm sure, and have to do with Wikipedia and wikicultural qualities, similarly to the greatly reduced numbers of women who participate.

It would be highly advisable for Bauder to apologize, for the WMF to distance themselves from those remarks. They don't have to crucify him. Unless he refuses to apologize.

This will go over great in India.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 18th November 2010, 7:23pm

[Abd]

MODS! please delete this extra post.

This post has been edited by Abd: Thu 18th November 2010, 7:22pm

[Eva Destruction]

However, there is another assumption that some are making: that participation in wikiconferences is a cross-section of Wikipedia editors. It may be highly warped.

I imagine these lovely specimens are a representative cross-section of Wikipedia, and do show a higher proportion of white editors than would be expected, even allowing for disproportionate numbers of editors from Britain and Ireland (both with a population about 95% white). The only high-profile Wikipedia editor I can think of who self-identifies as African-American is TonyTheTiger (T-C-L-K-R-D) . There are systemic reasons black editors are unlikely to identify as such on Wikipedia—ED generally targets them until they resign in disgust—but there are still startlingly few.

[Milton Roe]

This whole "don't volunteer" argument was completely bogus, as shown by the statistics. The ratio, even with what may understate some kinds of volunteer work, was 28% for "white" and 20% for "black." So ... that could not explain the vast under-representation of apparent black participation.

What if he'd said "Black MEN don't volunteer, and since it's mostly males who edit wikipedia, that doesn't leave meny African American editors."

[Kelly Martin]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

[Ottava]

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.

Who is Ottova?



By the way, didn't Somey et al spend their time criticizing me for posting mostly one liners?

This post has been edited by Ottava: Thu 18th November 2010, 9:01pm

[thekohser]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

That is an excellent point, absolutely true.

[jayvdb]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

That is an excellent point, absolutely true.

I agree. Also, because Wikipedia is not well regulated or understood (etc.), people may feel their time is better given to other community service where the link between effort and impact is more direct.

[Zoloft]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

That is an excellent point, absolutely true.

I agree. Also, because Wikipedia is not well regulated or understood (etc.), people may feel their time is better given to other community service where the link between effort and impact is more direct.

I volunteer at the food bank. In the past I've volunteered for MDA and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. I've attended American Red Cross fundraisers. I participated in local charity drives in my mostly-white community. 'Blacks don't volunteer' is BS. Bauder must not do much charity work.

[jayvdb]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

That is an excellent point, absolutely true.

I agree. Also, because Wikipedia is not well regulated or understood (etc.), people may feel their time is better given to other community service where the link between effort and impact is more direct.

I volunteer at the food bank. In the past I've volunteered for MDA and the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society. I've attended American Red Cross fundraisers. I participated in local charity drives in my mostly-white community. 'Blacks don't volunteer' is BS. Bauder must not do much charity work.

Or he might do charity work which is 'white' in nature.

[privatemusings]

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

(bit of a side comment - but if you're around, Carbuncle, could I have permission to publish this image on commons, I'd like to start work on a satirical wiki-rag a la onion / private eye, to complement the signpost - p'raps it'd be a good fit? Either ways, if it's ok with you, I'll upload it over there so I could use it.......)

[carbuncle]

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

(bit of a side comment - but if you're around, Carbuncle, could I have permission to publish this image on commons, I'd like to start work on a satirical wiki-rag a la onion / private eye, to complement the signpost - p'raps it'd be a good fit? Either ways, if it's ok with you, I'll upload it over there so I could use it.......)

You are of course welcome to use it for any purpose which you see fit.

This post has been edited by carbuncle: Thu 18th November 2010, 11:12pm

[SB_Johnny]

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

(bit of a side comment - but if you're around, Carbuncle, could I have permission to publish this image on commons, I'd like to start work on a satirical wiki-rag a la onion / private eye, to complement the signpost - p'raps it'd be a good fit? Either ways, if it's ok with you, I'll upload it over there so I could use it.......)

You are of course welcome to use it for any purpose which you see fit.

[Milton Roe]

There's a difference between volunteering to do something for the greater benefit of a community of which one is a member (even if that community is "humankind as a whole"), and "volunteering" to do something because it amuses you. I wager that most of the people "volunteering" at Wikipedia are doing it because it amuses them to do so; that is, the motivation is self-centered (for the primary benefit of the self) instead of outward (for the primary benefit of others). Essentially, for most Wikipedians, Wikipedia is a hobby, not a volunteer activity.

That is an excellent point, absolutely true.

What if doing something for "humankind as a whole" or even some identifiable schlub in a bad hole, is what amuses me? Or satisfies me? Or allows me to enjoy life? It's hard for me to enjoy anything in life when somebody right in front of me, for reasons not their fault, isn't enjoying life in a way I can easily fix. That's a pretty basic human response, far apart from religion or anything else. It's sort of primal and not reducible to any simpler stuff, since it's probably all bound/wound up in family bonds and community bonds and being a social animal.

Plus, I'm not storing up treasures in Heaven. I don't believe in Heaven.

[Kelly Martin]

What if doing something for "humankind as a whole" or even some identifiable schlub in a bad hole, is what amuses me? Or satisfies me? Or allows me to enjoy life? It's hard for me to enjoy anything in life when somebody right in front of me, for reasons not their fault, isn't enjoying life in a way I can easily fix. That's a pretty basic human response, far apart from religion or anything else. It's sort of primal and not reducible to any simpler stuff, since it's probably all bound/wound up in family bonds and community bonds and being a social animal.

Three points here. One, obviously the line between self-gratification and altruism is blurry. Two, the degree to which it's blurry varies from individual to individual. Three, in most people one or the other dominates in any particular action, and it's usually possible to separate the two.

Obviously there's such a thing as self-interested volunteerism: anybody who pitches in to help repair neighborhood community center is engaged in such activity. However, I still consider it genuine volunteerism when one's primary, proximal motivation is to benefit a broader group, even when self-interested motivations are also present. "Fixing someone else's problem that you can easily fix" without expecting compensation is, simply put, altruism, even if you do it because failing to do it makes you feel uneasy, or because doing it makes you feel better about yourself. (It can be argued that if you do not experience those responses, you're morally defective. There's a reason we call such people "heartless" and "callous" and, well, "inhuman".)

In the case of the average Wikipedian, the communal motivation is, I suspect, largely absent, or at least submerged; these people are doing it because they enjoy correcting typos or spelling (that's what drew me in originally), or because stalking vandals gives them an adrenaline rush, or because they want to be an admin because admins are cool, or because they want everyone else to see how terribly smart, erudite, or literate they are. They're not doing it "for that starving child in Africa"; that's at best a secondary motivation, or even a pretext. Yes, there are certainly some Wikipedians who honestly want to share their knowledge solely for the betterment of mankind, but I'm quite certain that they're the minority.

There are compulsive volunteerers: people who have made volunteering (or altruism generally) into a hobby. I've run into a few of them; some of them are very good at what they do, others are not. But I think there's relatively few of them on Wikipedia, if for no other reason that most of them are too busy serving with a dozen other community organizations to edit Wikipedia.

[TungstenCarbide]

What if doing something for "humankind as a whole" or even some identifiable schlub in a bad hole, is what amuses me? Or satisfies me? Or allows me to enjoy life? It's hard for me to enjoy anything in life when somebody right in front of me, for reasons not their fault, isn't enjoying life in a way I can easily fix. That's a pretty basic human response, far apart from religion or anything else. It's sort of primal and not reducible to any simpler stuff, since it's probably all bound/wound up in family bonds and community bonds and being a social animal.

Three points here. One, obviously the line between self-gratification and altruism is blurry. Two, the degree to which it's blurry varies from individual to individual. Three, in most people one or the other dominates in any particular action, and it's usually possible to separate the two.

There's another point, Kelly. Volunteering makes a person feel better about themselves, much like caring for a house plant raises one's self-esteem, which doesn't fall under the self-gratification classification. When done as a group, volunteering benefits the community's self-image as well as the individual volunteer's, reinforcing the positive strictures of society. Let's face it, you take off the restrictions that society places on humans and we are not pleasant creatures, not compared to dogs anyway as Diogenes was fond of pointing out. Being civilized creatures takes constant work, and volunteering in your community helps polish some of the rough edges. It helps the recipients, the volunteers and the community as a whole. A healthy self-image is important for a species that goes to church on Sunday when not engaging in genocides.

That being said, wikipedia is a MMORPG or a diversion for most of the addicts there, not a volunteer activity.

This post has been edited by TungstenCarbide: Fri 19th November 2010, 8:08am

[MZMcBride]

(bit of a side comment - but if you're around, Carbuncle, could I have permission to publish this image on commons, I'd like to start work on a satirical wiki-rag a la onion / private eye, to complement the signpost - p'raps it'd be a good fit? Either ways, if it's ok with you, I'll upload it over there so I could use it.......)

Quite possible something like that already exists. Search around a bit.

[Cla68]

What if doing something for "humankind as a whole" or even some identifiable schlub in a bad hole, is what amuses me? Or satisfies me? Or allows me to enjoy life? It's hard for me to enjoy anything in life when somebody right in front of me, for reasons not their fault, isn't enjoying life in a way I can easily fix. That's a pretty basic human response, far apart from religion or anything else. It's sort of primal and not reducible to any simpler stuff, since it's probably all bound/wound up in family bonds and community bonds and being a social animal.

Three points here. One, obviously the line between self-gratification and altruism is blurry. Two, the degree to which it's blurry varies from individual to individual. Three, in most people one or the other dominates in any particular action, and it's usually possible to separate the two.

There's another point, Kelly. Volunteering makes a person feel better about themselves, much like caring for a house plant raises one's self-esteem, which doesn't fall under the self-gratification classification. When done as a group, volunteering benefits the community's self-image as well as the individual volunteer's, reinforcing the positive strictures of society. Let's face it, you take off the restrictions that society places on humans and we are not pleasant creatures, not compared to dogs anyway as Diogenes was fond of pointing out. Being civilized creatures takes constant work, and volunteering in your community helps polish some of the rough edges. It helps the recipients, the volunteers and the community as a whole. A healthy self-image is important for a species that goes to church on Sunday when not engaging in genocides.

That being said, wikipedia is a MMORPG or a diversion for most of the addicts there, not a volunteer activity.

Both you and Kelly made some really good points. My participation in Wikipedia is not primarily because of altruism, but because it allows me to explore the minutia of one of my hobbies (the Pacific War). I don't think I'm alone in that. If I was motivated by altruism, I would be spending less time with Wikipeida and trying harder to learn Japanese and then running for the local political assembly of the Japanese town where I live, as there are social issues in Japan which need resolving. Wikipedia is hobby or pasttime for most its regular contributors. Improving an article does not give a child in African improved immunity to cholera or tuburculosis. It does not give a bed or sufficient nutrition to an American child in the Mississippi Delta. It's a hobby. Contributors to the WMF need to realize that a percentage of their contributions go to funding a big-city, metropolitan lifestyle in San Francisco for the WMF staff, not to feeding Chinese peasants trying to farm polluted land or Cambodian farmers trying to clear land mines from their farm land.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Sat 20th November 2010, 4:11pm

[Gruntled]

Both you and Kelly made some really good points. My participation in Wikipedia is not primarily because of altruism, but because it allows me to explore the minutia of one of my hobbies (the Pacific War). I don't think I'm alone in that.

We may not always recognise altruism, or what an editor believes to be altruism, when we see it. Suppose someone firmly believes that he has the truth and the majority are fools, liars or whatever who don't know the truth or are trying to hide it. He will altruistically want to publicise the truth on WP and push aside those who would prevent him. We see not altruism but POV pushing. Similarly, someone may believe that a topic is vital and must be advertised via WP. We see fancruft. A large enough dose of AGF changes our perspective. (That's not to suggest for a minute that all POV pushers or fancruft specialists are altruists!)

[Milton Roe]

Both you and Kelly made some really good points. My participation in Wikipedia is not primarily because of altruism, but because it allows me to explore the minutia of one of my hobbies (the Pacific War). I don't think I'm alone in that. If I was motivated by altruism, I would be spending less time with Wikipeida and trying harder to learn Japanese and then running for the local political assembly of the Japanese town where I live, as there are social issues in Japan which need resolving. Wikipedia is hobby or pasttime for most its regular contributors. Improving an article does not give a child in African improved immunity to cholera or tuburculosis. It does not give a bed or sufficient nutrition to an American child in the Mississippi Delta. It's a hobby.

Yes, but your hobby could be putting the wings off flies, too. What makes you choose some hobbies over others?

I happen to believe that along with empathy as a primary, all healthy people are born with cleanup impulses that (especially as they grow into adults) make them fix messes (of any kind). We clean. We clean our children, our floors, our cars, we clean and oil our firearms. The people who weren't at all concerned with such stuff didn't leave us their genes, since they were slobs and fuckups they never got a date or their children died.

This stuff is only OCD if it interferes with your life. OCD is abnormal amounts of a perfectly normal impulse. People who have NONE of this impulse are like children. They're also unemployable, since all jobs worth anything involve cleaning up one mess or another (whether on a hard drive, a network, or in Aisle 9).

Now, we've all cleaned up messes as volunteers. Beer cans and soft drink cups in a park that need to go in the trash. If you do that yourself, you don't say: "I'm doing this for Jesus, to earn my place in Heaven!" Nor do you tell yourself that you're on a quest for Humanity. You just think "What an eyesore-- some drunk person or some kid didn't clean up their mess, so some responsible adult has to do it for them..."

Okay, now suppose we see somebody ELSE pick up the soft drink cup at the park and trash it? Do we say: "What a dweeb! That guy must have NO LIFE. He's doing the city's JOB for them, without being PAID. What an idiot. I'll bet he lives in his mother's basement. It probably gives him a big sense of authority to do a city job, like he actually HAD a job.... "

You know, playing devil's advocate, that would really be unfair. As also, any smart remarks about how the guy probably thinks he's being a Great Altruist (like this is helping the starving in Africa-- not), when actually he's merely satisfying his sick obsessiveness about orderliness at the park, or maybe just wasting his valuable time. Or, if he's doing it with a friend, that maybe this is just a mask for a social activity, and gets him no points at all therefore, for being a good-guy.

See my point?

Mr. Trashy