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.

    • rbn
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      7 months ago

      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.

      • stoy@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        7 months ago

        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.

        • rbn
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          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.

          • stoy@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            7 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.

      • Sas [she/her]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 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