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

121–130 of 191 posts

Re: Where’s _why?

#121

Post by AnnieLowrey »

pygy_ wrote: post #77
AnnieLowrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This was probably unintended, but giving his real name in your article also marks a precedent. Even though it was well known in Ruby circles, it had never been published in the press. Now that it has been, his Wikipedia page has been updated accordingly (now that they have a "reliable source" in Wikipedia parlance), which exposes his identity much more than it used to. For that reason, I wouldn't mind if you redacted…

His sister figures prominently in the most popular Ruby guide!

Re: Where’s _why?

#122

Post by jleader »

SoftwarePatent wrote: post #15
AnnieLowrey wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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 chance to respond.)" There's a difference between "giving them the chance to respond" and what happened here. Being a journalist doesn't give someone an excuse to…

I think there are 2 issues here: digging deep to try to get a response from _why, and publishing his real name and employer.

The first is debatable; exactly how much effort should a journalist put in to getting the story, particularly in a case where the subject didn't do anything wrong? Reading about the effort expended in this piece made me a little uncomfortable, but I don't know for sure whether I'd say it crossed the line.

The second issue, outing his identity, is more clear cut. The guy didn't want his identity revealed, hadn't done anything wrong, and is arguably not at this time a public figure; why not respect his wishes?

Publishing his name struck me as a vindictive way of punishing him for not responding to the requests for a statement.

I think the story would have been just as strong if the author hadn't mentioned his name or the exact city he lived in or the name of his employer. However, it would make the author's job harder next time she tries to get an interview if she doesn't have that punishment to hang over the next subject's head.

Re: Where’s _why?

#123

Post by redthrowaway »

MatthewPhillips wrote: post #119
AnnieLowrey wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Being aware that people are curious about you is not the same thing as being given an opportunity to contribute and respond to an article in which you play a central role.

Annie was entirely right to seek his input, and did nothing untoward in trying to track him down. I suspect the indignation here is a result more of the mythology surrounding _why and his place in the community than any actions on Annie's part. Were it some random person, an author perhaps, with whom HNers felt no bond, we wouldn't be seeing this issue as the dominant response to the piece.

Re: Where’s _why?

#124

Post by redthrowaway »

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…

I think you hit on one of the fundamental failings of education in general, in that the only ones qualified to do it by necessity forget what it's like to be learning. The kind of hands-on testing you do is, I think, both commendable and necessary if we are to improve the way we teach and learn.

Re: Where’s _why?

#125

Post by thaumaturgy »

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…

Hi Annie,

I think it's really neat that you're taking the time to respond to comments here. Thank you for that.

I avoided the word "harassment" because I don't really think that what you did was harassment. But, I don't think I can agree to describe it as straightforward reporting, either. Straightforward reporting would have been statements like, "but the person behind _why remains a mystery to many after his infosuicide, having chosen for unknown reasons to remain as anonymous as possible..."

It's true that his identity was known in some circles, but Slate isn't exclusive to those circles; regardless of how you or I want to describe it, in the end, you published the identity (and other personal information) of a person who wished to remain anonymous.

Sometimes that can make for great journalism, but in this case, I think your article would have been even better if you hadn't done that.

Thanks again for participating.

Re: Where’s _why?

#126

Post by thaumaturgy »

redthrowaway wrote: post #123
MatthewPhillips wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Being aware that people are curious about you is not the same thing as being given an opportunity to contribute and respond to an article in which you play a central role. Annie was entirely right to seek his input, and did nothing untoward in trying to track him down. I suspect the indignation here is a result more of the mythology surrounding _why and his place in the community than any actions on Annie's part. Wer…

I find it hard to imagine that people would have been as stirred up if she had tracked him down and given him the opportunity to respond to or contribute to the article, and then written only that the person behind _why wished to remain anonymous.

I think the indignation here is that _why's real name and past and current places of employment have now been published on Slate.

Re: Where’s _why?

#128

Post by i386 »

philwelch wrote: post #118
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.

How so?

Re: Where’s _why?

#129

Post by redthrowaway »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #126
redthrowaway wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being aware that people are curious about you is not the same thing as being given an opportunity to contribute and respond to an article in which you play a central role. Annie was entirely right to seek his input, and did nothing untoward in trying to track him down. I suspect the indignation here is a result more of the mythology surrounding _why and his place in the community than any actions on Annie's part. Wer…

I find it hard to imagine that people would have been as stirred up if she had tracked him down and given him the opportunity to respond to or contribute to the article, and then written only that the person behind _why wished to remain anonymous. I think the indignation here is that _why's real name and past and current places of employment have now been published on Slate.

Had he communicated to her that he prefer his information not be published, I think it likely she would have acquiesced. Simply asking to "be left alone" does not imply not having anyone write about you, but rather that he didn't want to participate in the article. That's his prerogative, but I think people around here are holding Annie to a higher standard than they would for a journalist writing about a figure not so uniquely revered round these parts.

Re: Where’s _why?

#130

Post by philwelch »

i386 wrote: post #128
philwelch wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

How so?

For one, most Randroids won't shut up about it. For another, _why was just too whimsical, postmodern, and nonlinear to be a Rand devotee.
Post reply on HN