[…] over 80% of Wikipedia’s editors are young, white, child-free men, which means that their perspective is what largely dominates how information is organized, framed and written. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a young, white, child-free man’s perspective, of course– it’s just that there are tons of other perspectives in the world that should influence how a story gets told.
… digital humanities itself functions as an organizing principle that frames how race, gender, sexuality, and ability are embodied […] focusing on the impetus on ‘making’ and ‘coding’ for humanities folks, while the comp sci / engineering / STEM folks are not required to think about, learn, or even consider how their designs create structural inequalities in (computer) code.
- TressieMC’s article Digital Humanities: Egalitarian or Just A New Elite? presents a DH2013 panel with an important focus.
Topic above: announced insights by panelist Jarah Moesch.
Google might be blinded by its own smarts. It’s an honest to god braintrust, filled with people who want to make the future. But here’s the thing about the future: it should make the way we live our lives better, not dictate the way we live our lives. It’s unintentional—the company truly thinks Google+ is super cool. And maybe it is, to the engineers behind it. But for those of us who aren’t data-crazed boy geniuses, it’s a nerdy imposition.
Google told us Android’s search would be stellar because it would know everything about our lives—where we eat, where we live, where we work, constantly following our moves and tastes in order to provide intricate answers when we need them. But the whole deal presumes we’re comfortable being followed and memorized like that. To Google, it’s a non-grievance. Who would ever care? Why would you turn down a computer that knows the details of your personal life, and can predict the next one?
Another consequence of the trend to only talk about data and not society, norms, politics, values and everything else confusing about the analogue world is the victim-blaming implicit in most of these articles. The cause of the problem? Women sharing data. The solution? Women need to better control their data
(Source: The Atlantic)
Tech writers […] have focused too much on the data and have forgotten the social world in which the data is situated.
(Source: The Atlantic)
Tableau des différents types de valeur d’une monnaie complémentaire
Jean-Michel Cornu, FING
Observation of reality puts us on our guard against the temptation to construct over-simple models.
- Pierre Bourdieu (via robert-brydie)
The systems approaches may not provide a good explanation of day-to-day actions, activities, and interactions among individuals. At the same time, the interactionist approaches may not provide a good explanation of the structures of society and how these affect the individual. This gap is sometimes referred to as the agency-structure issue, and some theorists have attempted to simultaneously address both agency and structure.
In my world of social science scholarship, we make sense of human life not only in terms of biology, facial features, brains, hormones, and what Larson calls explanations from “caveman days.” Rather, we engage explanations that include family and cultural background, social class, ethnicity and race, sexuality, national contexts, changing ideologies, and a rich diversity of shifting gender expectations and preferences.