That page seems totally reasonable and admirable to me. It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with the important topic.

I don’t think an encyclopaedia should cater to racist views of its readers over factual information. So it seems unreasonable to stretch the truth to diversify or narrow down the number of people you mention and various labels you apply to them.

If you want Arab people to be able to appreciate the information, translate the page into Arabic or one of its various “dialects”. That would be useful.

> I don’t think an encyclopaedia should cater to racist views of its readers over factual information

Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming..

> So it seems unreasonable to stretch the truth to diversify or narrow down the number of people you mention

It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention". It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study.

> Uh, nobody thinks this. I'm sensing an straw man argument fast incoming..

Of course they do. That's what they say:

> The way I understand the program of decolonizing mathematics is to follow two principles:

> first, to recognize the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists who can inspire and with whom more people can identify > second, to provide examples and motivations that are relatable to under-represented backgrounds and identities, in order to reach and be more immediately helpful to more people

They imply that people will more readily identify and congregate with people of their own racial and ethnic background. That may be true, that doesn't make it any less racist.

> It's entirely unclear where you see the truth being stretched? Factually recognizing important contributions by people from under-represented backgrounds is doing the exact opposite of narrowing the "number of people you mention".

If you factually recognize important contributions, you don't have to make any efforts or care about the raised issue.

> It's literally mentioning more people who contributed to a certain effort or field of study.

Mentioning more than what?

If you want to write who invented the algorithm and there is one asian invention in 1303 and one by some eueopean in 1803 then leaving out the asian inventor is actively harmful to the encyclopedia as it distorts truth.

This article to me just tries to raise awareness for the fact that our western history of who invented what is often incomplete and sometimes simply wrong.

Historians right now have the unenviable task of considering how the history they work with has been distorted by racism (e.g. by playing down the role of certain people with the "wrong" race and instead attributing things to people with the "right" race).

I'd like an encyclopedia to list all inventors of something even if they are not known in my culture — preferably in my own language as well, but that is a different topic.

What exactly do you mean by "to find ways to connect with the important topic"? That sort of obfuscated language doesn't help explain anything.

Hes saying non-whites feel like functions are foreign to them

>It’s literally just advocating for including the wide and varied history of algorithm development, in order to encourage readers from many different backgrounds to find ways to connect with the important topic.

I'm at a loss of words for what I feel towards respecting (even promoting!) the idea that a piece of knowledge ought to become interesting or valuable if there is ethnic relationship to it. It reeks of supremacist talk to me.

If someone came up to me saying that he got into mathematics because Charles Babbage was a white guy, just like him, I'd think that person doesn't belong in current society. This doesn't change if the person belongs to any minority.

Just a friendly note: We all live in the same world, you can't, like, so obviously feign this level of ignorance and false outrage and expect to be taken seriously. It is clear to everyone that you are in fact aware of the nuances here, so you're remark is always going to be colored by your obvious bad faith (and possibly worse things). Maybe just first of all find a better forum for this kind of stuff, and also consider finding some better rhetorical devices to use.

Feigning ignorance? I am explicit in pointing how minorities tend to get a special deal when it comes to supremacist talk. I just don't condone it. I don't believe that glorification based on race is something you can keep to certain races. I am simply not racist about racism.

Gotcha, well good luck with that I guess.

Representation matters. Many people are not represented in the worlds knowledge, much less the creation of it.

Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation. Basically, you don't understand that "decolonization" is a metaphor for a broader historical perspective, and instead you're trying to interpret it literally and in a bad faith.

The only ones talking about "decolonization" are on one very extreme side of the political spectrum and trying to inject identity politics into everything.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33607032

I don't understand your argument. Where is, aside from the word "decolonization", the author of that document trying to "inject identity politics"? And to what end? (And you certainly seem to be concerned by identity of the people making those claims..)

Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds. It's like saying that "a group of extremist geeks who wrote Unix is trying to inject violence into everything". It's faux outrage that misses the point.

To what end? You’d have to ask the author and hope for a grounded answer. Probably internal satisfaction, virtue signaling, or advancing ideology.

> Take a step back and think about how your statement really sounds.

Why dont you tell him how you think it sounds instead of misrepresenting a consensus?

People also got mad at Git for having default branch named master.

Yeah, and it was misguided and irrelevant all the same. People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor, just like people who are concerned about historical views being represented understand that "decolonization" is also a metaphor for this due dilligence.

Context is everything. You're not gonna be killed by Unix command, enslaved by Github, and the land you own is not going to be confiscated by people who are writing an encyclopedia.

The difference is that "master" doesn't actually imply the existence of slaves in English, while "decolonization" does literally imply that there is some sort of colonialism that is being undone.

That's irrelevant unless you assume that they use the word "decolonization" in a bad faith. I argue they don't, and so it's a non-issue (people are being offended for no reason).

But IIRC, the first time I encountered the word "master" in computing, it was in the context of serial link data transfer, and there was a "slave".

It's irrelevant that the usage of a word, by the word's very construction, favors the formation of false beliefs, so long as there are good intentions behind it?

The fact that a word can be used in the context of slavery doesn't mean the word always and everywhere carries the taint of slavery. What could possibly limit the reach of such a principle? Can I talk about how I like cotton shirts better than other fabrics, when the mere mention of cotton might bring some people back to an uncomfortable place?

> People who actually use Git understand that "master" is a metaphor

I don’t think thats actually true. I think everyone knew the etymology was not slave owners. Which is the problem - its fighting a manufactured battle. Creating “systemic racism” out of thin air.

What "outrage"? Might as well ask why you are going insane with hatred over a simple question. How would that feel? Would you even bother to respond to something like that?

I responded in attempt to explain the viewpoint of the other side, by using an analogy (that can be familiar to people who do computers). There is no "insane hatred" in my response, on the contrary, I was trying to expand the PP's perspective.

PP seemed to be concerned about the word "decolonization" specifically, rather than the actual goal of properly organizing the history, and seemed annoyed by it enough to comment here. I would say that justifies it to be called an "outrage", but it's hard to defend or concede now that it has been flagged. I think were they not outraged, they can simply ignore my comment as irrelevant, and they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project.

> There is no "insane hatred" in my response

I know. My point was just that it's a needless escalation (just like replying that to you would have been), since even annoyance isn't outrage.

Either way it's talking about the inner emotions of a person on their behalf - flagged or not, how could someone possibly defend themselves against that? People can talk about their own feelings if they want, but talking about the feelings of others, feelings those other people didn't even express, just doesn't lead anywhere good, yet it's so common on the web nowadays. The wisdom of not reading feelings into text has been lost for a long time now. Let's bring it back I say :)

In short, you can ask people how they feel, but you can't tell them. Certainly not via text in absence of a history of actually knowing that individual person (as opposed to "a category of person you perceive that individual to belong to", which is how this came across to me).

> they are also welcome to clarify whatever objections they have with respect to that project.

Yes, and I can't say I disagree with it being flagged because "is this a joke?" is just needlessly convoluted. Just make your point, state where you disagree with the content etc. instead of asking others to rephrase or confirm that yes, they're serious. To me that's just as annoying as saying "y u mad bro?". But since it's already agreed that that's no good, I didn't reiterate that.

> Your outrage at this seems to be analogous to outrage of people who think that it is horrible that Unix has a "kill" operation.

The reaction is more similar to people who ARENT bothered by the use of kill, master, etc. The article about “decolonizing” functions is a shoehorned idealogical venture. A completely unnecessary political aside.

I also wouldnt call it outrage. That just seems like a way to make the point sound unreasonable without addressing its logic. If his reaction is outrage then so yours.

the whole foundation has become, intentionally or otherwise, performance-art self-parody

You ever see that South Park where they huff their own farts?

> first, to recognize the contributions of people with diverse backgrounds, in order to offer more protagonists who can inspire and with whom more people can identify second, to provide examples and motivations that are relatable to under-represented backgrounds and identities, in order to reach and be more immediately helpful to more people

Seems pretty reasonable IMO. Feels like pretty mellow and easy actions to take. But the linked post I agree is a bit … condescending? Self congratulating?