Ask HN: Is anyone willing to defend the manifesto for data practices?
5 comments
I've tried to flesh out some of the discussion of systemic risk here:
https://hackernoon.com/can-we-be-honest-about-ethics-ecf5840...
I'm not questioning the documents' merits, or the intentions of those who wrote them. I'm concerned about the downside potential they introduce through systemic risk.
https://hackernoon.com/can-we-be-honest-about-ethics-ecf5840...
I'm not questioning the documents' merits, or the intentions of those who wrote them. I'm concerned about the downside potential they introduce through systemic risk.
Schaun you are welcome to stop by https://slack.data.world and engage (and we definitely welcome engagement). This effort has been open for community review for several months (not just an MVP whipped together by a couple of "freds in a shed"). Please be warned however, simply linking to
https://medium.com/@schaun.wheeler/internet-argument-form-le...
when someone disagrees with you will not be welcomed by anyone, any more than it was in the D4D slack. I look forward to having a productive conversation with you and sharing our broader view for this being a living document (and much more than _just_ a document). Thanks.
https://medium.com/@schaun.wheeler/internet-argument-form-le...
when someone disagrees with you will not be welcomed by anyone, any more than it was in the D4D slack. I look forward to having a productive conversation with you and sharing our broader view for this being a living document (and much more than _just_ a document). Thanks.
A few things:
1. I never claimed the MVP was just whipped together. I claimed it was an MVP. I'm aware that this has been worked on for months - I joined the Slack channel and tried to participate. You made a straw-man argument.
2. The piece of my mine you linked to was never posted in the D4D slack. Or in any other community discussion. At least not by me. You resorted to an ad hominem attack on me personally instead of a principled attack on my position.
3. You stress the fact of this being a living document as if that had something to do with my concerns. Living or not, it went into production without fully considering the downstream harm the product could cause. You avoided my actual argument with a red herring instead of engaging it.
Given all of the above, why should I accept that your invitation to participate in the data.world slack was extended in good faith?
If anything in my original post seemed to warrant the hostility of your response, then I beg your pardon for poor wording. But my argument still stands.
1. I never claimed the MVP was just whipped together. I claimed it was an MVP. I'm aware that this has been worked on for months - I joined the Slack channel and tried to participate. You made a straw-man argument.
2. The piece of my mine you linked to was never posted in the D4D slack. Or in any other community discussion. At least not by me. You resorted to an ad hominem attack on me personally instead of a principled attack on my position.
3. You stress the fact of this being a living document as if that had something to do with my concerns. Living or not, it went into production without fully considering the downstream harm the product could cause. You avoided my actual argument with a red herring instead of engaging it.
Given all of the above, why should I accept that your invitation to participate in the data.world slack was extended in good faith?
If anything in my original post seemed to warrant the hostility of your response, then I beg your pardon for poor wording. But my argument still stands.
@shaunwheeler I posted this to HN earlier today, it might be of your interest, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16440425
Thanks! I filled out the survey.
https://towardsdatascience.com/an-ethical-code-cant-be-about-ethics-66acaea6f16f
At its core, the document’s authors have committed the same kind of ethical breach that the document itself was designed to prevent: they’ve turned out a minimum viable product without fully considering the downstream harm the product could cause. The code rewards virtue-signaling - and nothing else - which allows individual data science practitioners to benefit from something other than actually doing their jobs well. That hurts the profession, and by extension, those who turn to the profession for solutions.
I’ve reached out to individuals in the Data for Democracy Slack channel where the document was drafted, and on Twitter when I see the document mentioned, but have not been able to find anyone willing to engage. Considering the bold claims with which the product is marketed (“the most effective, ethical, and modern approach to data teamwork”), and the values enshrined in the document itself (“invite fair criticism while promoting...open discussion of errors, risks, and unintended consequences of our work”), I find this frustrating and concerning.
I’m not trying to be a jerk here. I have an honest concern about the ethical soundness of the document. If the people who wrote it actually believe they’ve created a viable and meaningful ethical code, they should be willing and able to defend it.
So, again, if you know anyone involved, please share this with them. If you were involved in the document, please address my criticism. We can have that conversation right here in this thread, or if you're not willing to talk publicly, reach out on Twitter (@SchaunW) and I can get you my contact info.
EDIT: Here's something you can retweet to point people to this page: https://twitter.com/SchaunW/status/966768206114361344 . Or better yet, use your own words.