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

131–140 of 191 posts

Re: Where’s _why?

#131

Post by davidw »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #125
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…

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 infosu…

It's pretty obvious from the style of the story that it's more than just straight reporting. It's not a news piece.

Re: Where’s _why?

#132

Post by csbartus »

HN got so sick ... After reading the article I came over to see the comments to get some more ... but found a totally different feeling.

That raganwald guy taking over such a rude way over a nice topic ....

Please take away all my karma, at least will worth it.

Re: Where’s _why?

#133

Post by jacoblyles »

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…

Hi Annie,

As a beginning programmer without many programmer friends, I suffered through many of the obstacles that you did when learning how to code - from figuring out which text editor to use to figuring out how to run a program. Most tutorials assume you know these things!

You mentioned Zed Shaw in your article, and he addressed "the little coder's dilemma" in his own way, and I think in the best way. If you feel the urge to learn how to program again, you should check out "Learn Python the Hard Way" by Zed. Zed doesn't assume anything. LPTHW starts with installing a text editor and running a basic program. No shortcuts! He is undoubtably inspired by those who came before, but his sympathy for the novice coder is unmatched.

Re: Where’s _why?

#134

Post by rdl »

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…

Publishing his name and especially the name of his employer didn't advance the story, screwed him over in google results forever, and is basically just doxing to show she can dox him. At best, a douchebag thing to do. It doesn't matter how great the rest of the article was.

Re: Where’s _why?

#135

Post by brianpan »

davesims wrote: post #75
raganwald wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sure, not a book review for NYT, but it is the top comment on HN, which has the unfortunate consequence of being the first impression a lot of people had of an article that had a lot of hard, thoughtful work put into it. It also caused some to actually not read the article, and that's what drew me out. Annie's work here deserved a better first impression from the HN community, and I think anyone who has an interest i…

Getting off-topic (although, I think we're already there)- I have been finding HN discussions harder to navigate lately. I still miss seeing the post voting scores.

I don't remember if how the comment thread display has changed, but it's getting ridiculous. People respond to the top comment because anything lower will be ignored. This top "thread" is taking up 80% of page.

I understand that this isn't supposed to be Reddit and I'm supposed to work a little harder to digest the information, but I find it very unlikely that people are going to read this entire comment page and find the signal in the noise.

I came to HN after reading the article and I'm not finding the discussion I was hoping for.

EDIT: Maybe what HN needs is an enhancement suite like RES.

Re: Where’s _why?

#136

Post by MaysonL »

redthrowaway wrote: post #120
thomaslangston wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

They're obviously not obliged too, but when they don't, they're acting in a shitty fashion, and calling them out on it is definitely worthwhile.

Re: Where’s _why?

#137

Post by rbanffy »

It's fun to read it right now, for I'm sitting near the gates at SJC airport, a fresh PyCon behind me, waiting my flight to Salt Lake City.

I wish I had the kind of impact he did. It's nice to have role models, even if being one of them is not.

:-)

:-)

Re: Where’s _why?

#138

Post by MaysonL »

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…

Suppose you were writing about a rape? Would naming the victim, their current employee, partner's name, along with a picture, constitute harassment? You have no idea why _why needs privacy: destroying it was a somewhat evil act.

Re: Where’s _why?

#139

Post by newman314 »

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…

This is a relatively easy litmus test. Let's say someone you decided to do an investigative piece on you Annie Lowrey (arbitrarily deciding because you write publicly that it fits his definition of a "public figure) and publicly states considering visiting you at home in order to learn more about you.

Would you feel creeped out or "hey, come on in?" To me, _why by his actions has demonstrated that he wants his privacy and to be left alone. It is not for you to decide that he is a public figure. Prioritize the human aspect and respect his wishes before the advancement of your own career.

Re: Where’s _why?

#140

Post by icebraining »

ArtB wrote: post #109
icebraining wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Killing someone is a very different issue - it's not a private matter, but a public crime. But for the rest, why not? Why should one be forced to have his life publicized just because he creates something that many people like? You're essentially punishing people for doing good things. That feels very wrong to me.

You are not being punished even if you perceive as such. One could say that an obese women that loses weight and gets in shaped gets punished because men hit on her.

If that hypothetical woman was getting hit by men after she made it clear that she dislikes it, then I'd say it is punishment. Well, not punishment exactly, because that's a response to a behavior considered wrong, but in a "no good deed goes unpunished" sense.
Post reply on HN