Free and Open Source Software

17931 readers

110 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

133

Gender bias in open source: Pull request acceptance of women versus men (www.researchgate.net)

submitted 5 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

38 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Our results show that women's contributions tend to be accepted more often than men's [when their gender is hidden]. However, when a woman's gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often. Our results suggest that although women on GitHub may be more competent overall, bias against them exists nonetheless.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Page 15

~Anti~ ~Commercial-AI~ ~license~ ~(CC~ ~BY-NC-SA~ ~4.0)~

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Thank you. Unfortunately, your link doesn't work either - it just leads to the creative commons information). Maybe it's an issue with Firefox Mobile and Adblockers. I'll check it out later on a PC.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Page 15 of the pdf has this chart

(note the vertical axis starts at 60% acceptance rate)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

60% acceptance rate baseline? Doubt!

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Looking at their comment history they seem to allways include that link to the CC license page in some attempt to prevent the comments from being used with AI.

I have no idea of if that is actually a thing or just a fad, but that was the link.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Thanks for pointing that out.

Seems like a wild idea as... a) it poisons the data not only for AI but also real users like me (I swear I'm not a bot :D). b) if this approach is used more widely, AIs will learn very fast to identify and ignore such non-sense links and probably much faster than real humans.

It sounds like a similar concept as captchas which annoy real people, yet fail to block out bots.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago

Yeah, that is my take as well, at first I thought it was completely useless just like the old Facebook posts with users posting a legaliese sounding text on their profile trying to reclaim rights that they signed away when joining facebook, but here it is possible that they are running their own instance so there is no unified EULA, which gives the license thing a bit more credibillity.

But as you say, bots will just ignore the links, and no single person would stand a chance against big AI with their legal teams, and even if they won the AI would still have been trained on their data, and they would get a pittance at most.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

Their link wasn't to the paper but to the license to poison possible AIs training their models on our posts. Idk if that actually is of any use though