Comments on: Wikipedia changes my gender more than I do

CNET News' Ina Fried reflects on the ever-changing nature of the online encyclopedia, which lately has had her shifting from "he" to "she."

[drjohnk]

We'll, if it makes any difference at all, you're a she to us Cnet lovers!
Best of luck getting them to recognize that on Wikipedia!

[SJ2571]

How is your personal life considered tech news? Be professional and write about something tehnical rather than your choice of gender.

[drjohnk]

I think it warrants mention as an odd loophole in Wikipedia. And it's kinda funny!

[gsmiller88]

Because it's pertaining to Wikipedia! Try and keep up.

[schwegler]

It's simply an example of a bigger problem that plagues Wikipedia. Are you saying Wikipedia isn't tech news?

[Chronostat]

Wow, how about you leave your bias at home and pay attention. This article is about Wikipedia. Maybe you've heard of it? A small website with a few visitors?

[M78704]

I think the Wikipedia angle is just an excuse for Ina to talk about herself.

The absence of editorial standards on Wikipedia was covered by cnet two years ago:
http://news.cnet.com/Growing-pains-for-Wikipedia/2100-1025_3-5981119.html
http://news.cnet.com/Wikipedia-and-the-nature-of-truth/2010-1025_3-5979331.html
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-6108495.html

Clearly, if she really wanted to cover this topic there are far better examples of the challenges created by user-generated content.

The Wikipedia "incident" referenced in this article merely served as another excuse for Ina to write about herself.

[Muhammad I.]

I agree completely. What a BS article.

[Mr. Dee]

Just use Encarta.

[M78704]

Ina, I tend to avoid your column because you spend WAY too much time talking about yourself.

Your personal life is just that... personal. Would you mind checking your ego at the door and focusing your attention on technology news?

If you want to share your thoughts on gender topics and other things not directly related to technology then get yourself a personal blog.

For years the personal blog has been communication vehicle of choice for people who assume that the rest of the world at large has a deep and insatiable interest in their lives. Personally, I couldn't care less about what gender you are, why you have decided to be that gender, how other people perceive you and how you feel about it.

I read cnet for technology news, not for personal information about the cnet journalists. Since Charles Cooper isn't writing about what he had for breakfast and Dan Farber is not sharing whether he prefers boxers or briefs, I see no reason why you should write about your personal life.

[M C]

Oh M7874, odd that your post basically talks about yourself. :) Having read Ina's stories (and later, posts) since she was Ian, I can safely say that she hasn't spoken about herself here NEARLY as much as you would like to portray it. (And I've been a pretty harsh CNet critic of late, so I don't say this out of friendship.)

Yes, it may be uncomfortable for you. But this is an interesting tech story, for those who can look past their biases and see the story.

Hope this helps.

[Galaxy5]

Sounds like some people are a little uncomfortable. Maybe they can do as they suggest Ina does, and refrain from talking about themselves.

Personally, I don't mind. This is interesting stuff, especially considering the hate and violence that's been emanating from Knoxville lately.

[M78704]

MC and Galaxy5, I think you've both missed my point. I am not uncomfortable at all with Ina or her personal situation. I simply think that she's stretching what is relevant so that she can talk about herself.

With all seriousness, I couldn't care less.

[Muhammad I.]

You tell her/him.

[GeneOdyssey]

Odd news item. Yes cnet is diverse and all, but geez dudette have some tact.

[russell_liam]

I think Ina makes some useful points about the ways gender becomes contested in some contexts easier than others based on how technology is being used socially. Her blog is certainly relevant to "tech news" even if the particulars do happen to include personal subject matters. It is a blog, and a blog called "beyond the binary" for heaven's sake...

[Chronostat]

I just found your blog Ina. It's a keeper for me. Going to start watching your blog.

[James7777777]

Why is this on cnet's rss feed? Anyone know how I can filter this drivel?

[mrgoodall]

So, guess what just happened? A lot of you guys just showed your bigot card. To address some of the questions, yes, Ina's column is definitely tech-related. Seeing as how Wikipedia is seen as the new world's ultimate reference for facts and nuggets of knowledge, and given its open edit policy, anyone can contribute via technology and knowledge nuggets they choose to a topic. The topic in question is Ina, not solely because she is transgendered, but because she is relevant to technology reporting, the same way that James Kim was, the same way that Tom Krazit is as he corrals all these iPhone "issues" and has more posts from people who don't own the thing than that do. Ina is reporting on the ease of which a reference can be altered without regard for structure, while in "real world" reporting there are guidelines that are adhered to. Nothing more, noting less. So take your attacks and shallow viewpoints and point them elsewhere, cuz they truly aren't technology related.

[svk1069]

I'm glad to see you have the courage to write an article like this that you know will draw out all the hateful "I don't want to hear about it" comments. Pay them no mind and keep doing what you do!

[M78704]

How is "I don't want to hear about it" hateful?

Besides, the negative comments are mostly in the theme of: how is this relevant?

Here's an example. Suppose Dan Farber receives a spam email message on the topic of ***** enlargement. Then he blogs about it on cnet, including some personal information about his endowment that has absolutely nothing to do with email or spam. Would that be relevant? Of course not. The same principle applies here.

The issue here is one of maintaining a separation between one's personal life and one's journalism.

By telling Ina, "you go girl" you are holder her to a lower standard, which (ironically) isn't fair to her. I think she's a better journalist that this particular column would suggest, but perhaps I am mistaken.

[Muhammad I.]

So you're actually encouraging somebody to right about their personal life in what's supposed to be a TECH blog? Way to go, buddy.

I stumbled on Ina's blog several months ago and my initial reaction, like several others apparently, was that it was oftentimes too personal and completely irrelevant to technology and cnet. After more thoughtful consideration, I came to realize that knee jerk response was due to my discomfort with the whole idea of gender changing more so than this blog being unrelated to technology.

Exploring how gender and other social issues are handled by technology is completely relevant and Ina has a unique perspective from which to observe and comment. Once I got past my initial prejudice and discomfort, I have found her writing to be well considered and immensely interesting.

[The_Decider]

What gender issues exist for technology?

This is not a technology issue, it is a policy issue.

[_Seffer_]

This post is clearly tech related. It deals with Wikipedia and the difficulties a person can have when an article about them is controlled by consensus. Calling the post "drivel" and saying that she has no "tact" just shows how backward some people are. How is it tactless to talk about gender identity? Granted, for most people this is a nonissue, but I just don't see how tact enters into the picture.

The one thing I don't get is why Ina can't weigh in on the discussion or even change the pronouns in her own article. Is there a rule that people can't change articles about themselves?

[Jack K1]

Ya know, you could upload a decent photo for the article. I'm pretty sure you're allowed to do that.

[Jack K1]

And yes, Wikipedia has rules about conflict of interest - so editing one's article is frowned upon. You'd be surprised/amused at how many celebs have been barred from editing Wikipedia because they couldn't keep their mits off their own articles.

Think of it this way, would you like to see your least favorite national politician editing his/her own article? The word "is" could take on a whole new meaning.

[gr3gg0r]

Looks like her wikipedia article is up for deletion now ... It also looks a bit changed since she wrote this article. They have removed any reference to either "he" or "she."

[_Seffer_]

OK. This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Help#Quick_guide_to_fixing_errors has instructions on editing your own article. It's not frowned upon, so long as you follow the guidelines. They mostly want you to try to remain neutral and understand that Wikipedia has policies about its articles, so people can't expect their articles to say whatever they want.

The page I linked to includes a link to a dispute resolution page and to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard "Biographical Articles Noticeboard", where "all queries and concerns about biographies can be posted".

The gist of all of this is that you are not helpless if there's a biographical article about yourself that you feel misrepresents you in some way.

[guillermo_valverde]

I've been reading cnet for years - and I can see how some people may find this post a bit surprising.

Just a thought: its fine and "cute" for David Pogue (NYT) to clown around with his children in a so-called "tech product review" - but when Ina Fried talks about gender reassignation, suddenly some commenters are all upset. Can you say: "double standard"? Some "personal lives" are fine and OK, others really shouldn't be discussed?

The fact Fried's writing makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean the subject is inappropriate - it just means you need to add a new word to your self-knowledge vocabulary: transphobia. Welcome to the XXIst century, folks... There's something called the "internets" out there. And people change their gender.

[Galaxy5]

Bravo! Pogue's kids in his video reviews is a great example of tech reporters making their work more personable; I think the folks here complaining are simply uncomfortable with anything that isn't already in their sphere of experience.

[M78704]

Galaxy5, I completely disagree. I think that bringing your kids into your product reviews doesn't make them "more personable."

When journalism don't put a wall between their personal lives and their reporting, it dilutes the power of what their message. Imagine a political reporter who asked brought his sick child into a story about children's healthcare.

It sounds like some of you don't think that tech reporters are "real" journalist so you are happy holding them to a different (and much lower) standard than you would apply to someone covering politics or the economy.

[Stormspace]

Personally, I find the whole gender issue to be distrubing and while I find your articles insightful and interesting I make it a point to scroll down a little as soon as the page loads. Do I have a problem? Perhaps, but I also don't live in San Francisco where these issues are more everyday and people have an opportunity to get used to them.

Do I find your choice offensive? Admittedly I do on some non-verbal level even though my brain realizes that your just a normal person getting by as best you can. Your choice at best is only shared by a small number of people and it's completely understandable that many have trouble getting their minds around it. All this said I really don't think that C|Net is the proper forum for you to push your life style choices, but at the same time it has given me the opportunity to express my feelings on the subject. So, here's to reading more great and on topic stuff from you!

[M C]

I understand people's discomfort, but it was pretty easy to avoid this article based on the headline alone, yet those people chose to click and read.

It almost seems like they did so just so they could complain.

[The_Decider]

I am not sure how it matters one way or another. People are going to view you through their filters regardless of how you view yourself.

Besides, it is not like a 'real' encyclopedia would even consider any CNET writer(you guys don't qualify as journalists) for inclusion, which points to the real strength of wikipedia.

[The_Decider]

Why do people consider what is strictly a policy issue to be a technology issue?

[Jack K1]

Probably because Wikipedia makes policies in a way that pretty much no other organization does. Wikipedia has re-written the rules of collaborative technologies, and this is but one interesting example.