Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Where’s _why?

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: Where’s _why?

#111

Post by thought_alarm »

I once joked that _why worked for an ASP.NET firm writing enterprisy middleware, and his employment contract forbid him from participating from open source projects, which is why he had to remain anonymous.

That now seems somewhat close to the truth.

Regardless, he obviously wanted to keep his real life (and perhaps his real job) isolated from the _why persona, and there are all sorts of perfectly legitimate and understandable reasons for wanting that separation. If some jackass started stalking me in the way the _why was stalked, I would be extremely pissed and would close up shop just like he did. Why that's so difficult for some people to understand, I'll never know.

Anyway, I enjoyed the article and I think he gave the perfect response to the reporter.

Re: Where’s _why?

#112

Post by Estragon »

zedshaw wrote: post #96
athst wrote: post #46

This is a really great article. I didn't realize that Slate gave their journalists a month out of every year to do something like this. I think the description of her initially trying to learn ruby is really instructive for everyone who wants more people to learn how to code. There are just simple things you don't think about that a beginner can really get hung up on. For example, why can't you enter code into a word…

One thing I do with my books is I actually meet up with beginners and watch them try to use it. It seems every time I do that I find something new I hadn't anticipated. Like recently I changed the first exercise of LPTHW to have screenshots of what they will literally see: http://learnpythonthehardway.org/book/ex1.html I met with a beginner and watched her go through the first exercise, and she didn't understand that…

How do you meet people interested in doing this?

Re: Where’s _why?

#113

Post by Terretta »

raganwald wrote: post #74
davesims wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I care deeply about _why and his contributions as well, and I still cringe thinking about how I felt the moment I realized he and his work and his wit were gone from the community forever. The Poignant Guide was my intro to Ruby and still sets the whimsical, slightly surreal tone in the back of my mind for how I think about coding to this day. But, raganwald, upon reading and re-reading it, I didn't take one bit of "…

my impression right of the bat with "Let's see now" and onward was that you were being harshly critical. I was being harshly critical of calling the man at work and naming him. I also wrote: The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and not…

> mentioned the things I liked and said so

Great. Fine.

// See, when used as one word responses, they do not indicate actual appreciation, they are dismissive.

Re: Where’s _why?

#114

Post by tptacek »

davidw wrote: post #22
raganwald wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. Your repeated emails and messages left for him obviously informed him. We’ll have to agree to disagree about what constitutes responsible journalism with respect to “trying to interview him.” Once he’s aware that you want to interview him and chooses not to respond, I’d say you tried. Your acti…

A few phone calls do not a paparazzo make. _why, with virtually no effort, maintained his privacy. The upvotes demonstrate that people are interested in the person, and it's a journalist's job to probe . Sometimes more so than other people would be comfortable with. While that can be awkward, I think it's a good thing, although in this case it doesn't matter so much.

The concern isn't with the probing; the concern is (eg) with documenting the specific firm for which he worked.

Re: Where’s _why?

#115

Post by DanBC »

Internationally, and for many years, over many different survey bodies, "reporter" turns up on the lists of "unpopular professions".

What is the public interest in giving his real name? What possible purpose does it serve? I understand that the journalist wanted to give him the opportunity to respond, but that's no reason to publish the name.

He made it very clear that he wanted to stay private. Until there's an important reason to breach his privacy you should respect that.

Re: Where’s _why?

#116

Post by davesims »

AnnieLowrey wrote: post #11
raganwald wrote: post #5

Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine. And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Sen…

Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts. As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chan…

Great job, Annie! And what a great way to introduce a lot of new people to Ruby, and _why's unique contributions to Ruby and the open source community in general. I thought your article was very well researched and treated _why with respect. Your appropriate level of persistence in attempting to contact him was just responsible journalism. No editor I know of worth their salt would have accepted any less from a writer.

Re: Where’s _why?

#117

Post by AnnieLowrey »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #81
davidw wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few phone calls do not a paparazzo make. _why, with virtually no effort, maintained his privacy. The upvotes demonstrate that people are interested in the person, and it's a journalist's job to probe . Sometimes more so than other people would be comfortable with. While that can be awkward, I think it's a good thing, although in this case it doesn't matter so much.

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected? I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking…

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here.

I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here.

But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been outed and whose offline identity was widely known.

We're talking about a phone message, an email forwarded from his office's receptionist, and a note, spaced over the course of a few months. I don’t think that constitutes harassment. My central objective was just making sure he had the opportunity to respond, if he wanted to, and would not be surprised when the piece came out.

I did extensive interviewing among Rubyists and other programmers for the piece, and would often ask them about _why's work, his guide's influence, his work's influence on them, etc. A bunch delightedly brought up old war stories about him, some of which made it into the piece. The back channeling about his offline identity came, unsolicited actually, from those conversations.

At any rate, I do appreciate all of the comments and criticisms of how I treat it in the piece. And am very appreciative of everyone’s compliments of the article as well.

Re: Where’s _why?

#118

Post by philwelch »

SarahKay wrote: post #99

I have a theory about what motivated _why to quit. Partway through the article it says that the name "_why" is a reference to The Fountainhead. (The precise reference is here: http://books.google.com/books?id=3WiS2jWThFAC&lpg=PT133&... ) If he read that, maybe he also read Atlas Shrugged (also by Ayn Rand) -- a story in which several successful and prolific characters "disappear" in exactly this manner. I won't spoil…

I've been an Randroid, and I"ve known a lot of Randroids, and _why never struck me as the type.

Re: Where’s _why?

#119

Post by MatthewPhillips »

AnnieLowrey wrote: post #117
thaumaturgy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It may be a journalist's job to probe, but it is a fellow human's job to have empathy. raganwald is perfectly correct in distinguishing between _why as a public figure, and the man behind _why as a private one. The man behind _why clearly wished to remain private; why are his wishes not being respected? I think that you are being dismissive when you say, "a few phone calls". From the article, the author tried: asking…

Hi thaumaturgy, Annie here. I'm completely receptive to the criticism of my treatment of the public persona / private person question -- as I wrote before, I expected it and appreciate everyone's insightful comments here. But I'd just like to push back on the idea that my reporting somehow constituted harassment, rather than straightforward reporting on a public figure – and one who had unfortunately already been out…

I'm pretty sure _why is aware that people wonder about him. He'd be in touch if he wanted to.

Re: Where’s _why?

#120

Post by redthrowaway »

thomaslangston wrote: post #97
mbreese wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're being a little too harsh. This story isn't for programmers. It's for everyone else that thinks the computer is a magic box. For us, it gives us a story about someone who is trying to learn how to program and about programming culture. I think the author did a pretty good job of taking a month and exploring both the nuts an bolts of programming and the people behind it. Sure, she still couldn't do much…

I don't think he was harsh enough. I think you're too forgiving of some really awful behavior. Writing a beautiful article or being motivated to get the story doesn't excuse it. The fact that most of the readers of the article won't care doesn't either. She did cross the line. I would be furious if someone I didn't want to talk to (and who knew it) did what she did. The fact she published his private information lead…

What you decry is standard journalistic fare. Tracking down a central figure in your article is a mark of investigative journalism. The individual's desires for privacy do not, by that fact alone, afford them the right to never have anyone try and contact them.

We respect his privacy both because of his contributions, and because his feelings are clear. That does not mean everyone else on Earth is obliged to.

Post reply on HN