Talk:Chelsey Glasson

The Design of Everyday Things

Current language states Glasson had a role on the Design of Everyday Things Udacity course that was less significant than her two male peers, including language that Norman and Simsarian were course leads and developers but not Glasson. In the edit history, two sources are falsely claimed as sufficient evidence to confirm her role as being "secondary".

If you read the sources, one states that Simsarian led design exercises while Glasson led reflective thinking exercises, but there's no statement of Glasson's role being lesser than or that she wasn't a course lead. A second source provided includes a quote from Glasson and references her as a course developer, but again there's nothing that explicitly states her contributions were secondary to those of her male collaborators.

The course website lists Glasson, Simsarian and Norman equally as course "instructors" and "leads" and should be the source of truth here. Women too often don't get equal credit for their contributions, and I'm worried without correction Glasson is being subject to such bias. Likely a case of unconscious bias and not intentional, but as is it reads like we're going out of our way to minimize Glasson's contributions. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 16:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: I specifically edit Wikipedia to increase the coverage and contributions of women. Suggesting a bias is influencing how I've included your suggestions is unfair. The course does refer to the three as instructors, but that is a primary source. It seems you may have a Wikipedia:Conflict of interest with the subject of this article, which I encourage you to disclose and consider reading how it can affect your judgement in editing in ways it does not impact other editors. Like I said before, I understand that what you are saying may be true, but it's not what the sources say. I went out of my way to include your previous contributions in a way that followed Wikipedia's standards, including by seeking source material for what you added. This is what the sources say, and I apologize if it's not quite accurate, and possibly minimizing Glasson's role, but Wikipedians cannot right great wrongs in sources. "Reflective thinking exercises implemented by Chelsey Glasson." and "The course is led by California College of the Arts Interaction Design program founder Kristian Simsarian as well as cognitive scientist and former Apple User Experience Architect Don Norman." are what are in the sources. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: I've altered the wording a bit so that it is nearly verbatim capturing the details of the two sources. I hope this addresses your concerns, as this is the best I can do with what's in the sources. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold Thank you for your contributions to coverage and contributions of women. That said, your contributions don't immune you from unconscious bias and I think it's dangerous to threaten people who raise concerns in an attempt to make sure articles are bias free. I do think your edits are a step in the right direction, although I question the hesitation to cite Glasson equally as a course "instructor" and "lead" when the course website states [1] that's Glasson's role alongside Norman and Simsarian. Building off your recent edits I think a more accurate and equal statement would be along the lines of, "Glasson developed and co-led a course with..." Also, the new edits state that Glasson developed the course under the direction of Irene Au, which again reads as an an attempt (whether conscious or not) to diminish Glasson's leadership role and is not what's stated in the referenced piece. It's subtle, but case in point why associate Au's role with Glasson but then not with Norman or Simsarian? Independent of Glasson's role, what is stated in the article is that the course began at the "behest" of Au. I appreciate the discussion on this matter. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: I believe I am reading the sources and writing what's there in a way that is neutral, accurate, and encyclopedic. I encourage you to get the opinion of another editor and again, familiarize yourself with WIkipedia's standards. Also, I did not threaten you. I said your inferences are unfair. Please assume good faith of other Wikipedians. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold I just made some changes which I think accurately combine both of our edits while staying true to the two original sources referenced. It still feels like we're going out of our way to uniquely dissect and minimize Glasson's contributions while broadly referencing Norman and Simsarian as "leads" contrary to what's stated on the course website, but I'm hoping this is a middle ground. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: I had to tweak your edit to reflect what's in the source, and some of the language was puffy and we cannot copy word for word what is in a source. It's considered plagiarism. I would like @GorillaWarfare to look this over and determine if I'm not properly reflecting what's in the sources. Again, I'm trying to abide by Wikipedia's standards. I wrote this article to begin with and scoured the internet to find highlights about Glasson. The idea that I'm trying to diminish her is absurd, and I assure you not the case. I just don't have all of the context that you do as someone without insider knowledge of the subject matter. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold I believe you have positive intent and appreciate your writing this article and the additional edits as we work together in increasing its accuracy. Also, my citing the course website doesn't mean I have insider knowledge. I'm simply making sure we're being careful in not minimizing Glasson's contributions relative to her male peers (something that so often happens unconsciously). 24.19.196.247 (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of your edits that don't reflect what is in the sources, or challenge the accuracy of those sources is what led me to suggest you may have a COI (which isn't necessarily bad, it just makes it difficult to write neutrally about subjects). I went through the course itself, and it seems to verify that Glasson's role was to implement the reflective exercises, which account for 4 out of 20 instruction videos. It's impossible for me based on the primary source, and the two secondary sources to agree with some of your edits. We should be careful not to minimize yes, but also not to overstate contributions, as the goal is to be accurate, neutral, and encyclopedic. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 04:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold Let me ask a few follow up questions here. Is stating you completed the course a stronger and more proper citation separate from what the course website directly states? And how is citing Glasson as a course "lead" and "instructor" overstating her contributions when that's what's explicitly stated on the course website? Finally, is there a citation that confirms Glasson implemented just 4 of the 20 instructional videos? Thank you. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold As additional potential references, I just came across this blog post that Glasson wrote that was published by Udacity, noting Glasson as "course developer" and stating that, "Don, Kristian Simsarian and I hope you enjoy taking The Design of Everyday Things course as much as we enjoyed making it!" I also found this article by UX Plantet which explicitly states, "This free Udacity course, lead by Chelsey Glasson (User Researcher at Google), Kristian Simsarian (IDEO Fellow and Founder of Interaction Design Programs at California College of the Arts), and Don Norman (Co-Founder of Nielsen Norman Group and all around badass/UX rockstar) gives beginners a gentle introduction to design thinking." And finally, Glasson is additionally cited as teaching the course "with Don Norman and Christian Simsarian" in the book UX Careers Handbook. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: "implemented" in this case means she was narrating 4 of the 20 videos, which were reflective exercises, as UX radio said. The citation would be the videos of the course, which yes, I watched. I did not say you or anyone was overstating her contributions. I mentioned the importance of stating contributions accurately to ensure you understood skewing in either direction was to be avoided equally. I do not disagree that she is listed as an instructor of the course, and developed the course (which is what it says in the source and Glasson's article). SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold Clarifying that UX radio didn't state that Glasson only contributed to 4 of the 20 videos, which could be an interpretation given the wording of the above comment. Also, upon my look Glasson narrated or co-narrated 14 of the course videos across all four lessons. I recognize neither of our statements here about number of videos narrated are references that can be used in the article, but given your comment is false by a large margin I wanted to set the record straight.

Greetings. I am here to provide a WP:3o as this is more what User:24.19.196.247 was seeking at the WP:DRN as it is too soon for dispute resolution, especially since some progress is being made here. I've reviewed the article and the sources. I am also knowledgeable in the area of education (former teacher). Having established that... User:SquareInARoundHold you mention the course website is a primary source- so is the radio interview currently being used. However, for basic information- primary sources are quite fine to use. And if the course itself lists Ms. Glasson as an instructor- it is entirely appropriate to do so here. In addition, since this is a class focusing on a book written by one of the other instructors, obviously the bulk of the research for the class was done by him. Crafting and implementing exercises to measure and increase understanding is not indicative of a lesser role. Crafting those exercises is an important role and takes the class from a lecture not much different than reading a book to an actual class that increases ownership and, thus, understanding of the material. This is probably why the website lists Ms. Glasson as an instructor. Blogs should NOT be used as a source though- so while its fine to discuss what was said here on the talk page- please do not include that as a source. Anyway- my opinion is that it is totally fine to use the course description to support Ms. Glasson being referred to as a co-instructor of that class. However, I also think the current wording is totally fine and does not minimize nor diminish her role. So- take what you will from that. If, after a about a week total discussion, you still cannot come to an agreement you are welcome to return to the DRN and open a case. But prolonged discussion is more than a day or two. And my opinion here is not binding- it is just an opinion. Nightenbelle (talk) 13:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Nightenbelle Thank you for your fresh eyes on this and the learning points! Bringing all of our thoughts together, here is what I feel is an accurate summary of Glasson's role and contributions. Does everyone feel good about this and am I okay to make this change? "While at Udacity, Glasson developed and co-taught a course with Don Norman and design scholar Kristian Simsarian, based on the first two chapters of Norman's book,The Design of Everyday Things, revised in 2013. The course was initiated by then-vice president of product and design Irene Au, with Glasson's role including implementing reflective exercises for the class." 24.19.196.247 (talk) 14:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the ux radio podcast itself be considered a secondary source, given that the information I'm using is not from Norman's interview, but rather the third-party's description of the course?

Also, for clarity, I was pointing to "the course was led by Norman and Simsarian", verbatim, in a source that was provided by the IP user in this discussion to begin with. and that Glasson implemented the reflective exercises. Not that the work she did was was of lesser value. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned on the Harvard Kennedy school website, I also want to highlight that there’s ample research speaking to how women are often given less credit for work they do in collaboration with men. It's subtle, but signs of our doing this in Glasson’s article in relation to her role on the Udactiy course include: referencing Glasson’s contributions as “secondary” in edit comments, refusing to refer to Glasson as a course “lead” and “instructor” despite what’s stated on the course website and elsewhere, continuing to emphasize Glasson's contributions as being separate from her male peers, and mentioning Au’s role in association with Glasson but not Norman or Simsarian, inferring that Norman and Simsarian had more autonomous leadership roles than Glasson. Again, I don't think anyone is being intentionally malicious here, but I do think this is a matter of unconscious bias. Would we be spending this amount of time debating Glasson's role on the course if she were a man? Thank you all for considering my revised edit above which I think corrects the bias I feel I'm seeing. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 16:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

"mentioning Au’s role in association with Glasson but not Norman or Simsarian" - Irene Au is a woman who was a VP at Udacity who instructed the course to be developed. Glasson worked at Udacity and developed the course.

"Again, I don't think anyone is being intentionally malicious here, but I do think this is a matter of unconscious bias. Would we be spending this amount of time debating Glasson's role on the course if she were a man? Thank you all for considering my revised edit above which I think corrects the bias I feel I'm seeing." - First of all, the edits you added originally were removed because they were poorly sourced and not following Wikipedia's standards. If I had a bias against women, I would simply have left all of it out instead of trying to add in everything you had edited previously in a way that met Wikipedia's standards. I encourage you, again, to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's rules, and stop stating your belief I am unconsciously trying to minimize Glasson's role in the course. I'm not. I specifically asked for others to come in and consider their opinion of the sources so that this content could stably stay on Glasson's article. I am happy to add that she is an instructor, equal the other two (which I never disagreed with), but I hesitate to say any of them taught the course, since it is entirely an asynchronous autodidactic course. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@24.19.196.247: I've decided not to challenge your removal, but the source you provided, and the course itself, make it pretty clear that the course design was led by the professor and the author of the book. A "course lead" at Udacity is someone who contributes material to the course. An instructor at Udacity is someone who implements or lectures the course material. The way "led" was being used in the sentence clarified, from the source, Norman and Simsarian's role, which as you would expect, was quite large given Norman wrote the book and Simsarian is a professor. You've exhausted my attempt to be neutral and accurate in representing the course. I'd rather not try to do so any further. In my opinion, excluding that context does Glasson a disservice, but I'll let other editors sort it out if necessary. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold Making statements inferring that Simsarian had a greater role in the course because he’s a professor outside of his affiliation with Udacity is a sign of unconscious bias. Simsarian being a professor doesn’t mean he contributed more than Glasson to the class; your statement here is subjective. You also claim to know how Udacity internally defines what it means to be course “lead” and “instructor.” How do you know this? The course website explicitly credits Norman, Simsiarian and Glasson as course “leads” and “instructors” and other sources note Glasson’s role also including being “course developer.” I appreciate your discourse here, although I would ask that especially as a "guy trying to make wikipedia more fair to women" (according to your profile) that you get curious, open, and start asking a lot of questions in response to someone mentioning potential bias in your representation of women's stories and voices. At the end of the day we’re all guilty of unconscious bias, despite our best intentions. Thank you for not changing my last edits. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about consensus of editors' opinions based on facts from reliable sources. I don't believe that's what has been found here, and it has nothing to do with my being a guy. The source you provided refers to Simsiarian and Norman, both IDEO fellows, as having "led" the design of the course. Norman wrote the book. In the UX Radio source, it says that Simsiarian, a professor and head of interactive design at California College of the Arts, where he teaches, designed the course's exercises. The course itself, as I said, clearly reflects this reporting. Please stop inferring I am editing with a bias. An uninvolved editor stated that their opinion was that my edits accurately reflected the sources and were not in any way diminishing Glasson. I sincerely urge you to read Wikipedia's Code of Conduct. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 08:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold Your representation of the UX Radio article is correct, but that's not the point I've been making. The point is that there was effort (conscious or not) to exclude information from other sources stating Glasson as course "lead" and "instructor" along with her male collaborators. The wording of your edits also consistently and subtly suggested that Glasson's contributions were "secondary" (using your language from edit comments). You finally used some subjective and unverifiable (and sometimes false) claims to argue in favor of your edits (e.g. Glasson only implemented four course videos upon your look, Simsarian being a professor and therefore his contributions must be greater, etc). Having said that, I think this section of the article is now accurate and I appreciate our coming to a consensus taking into account all sources available. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There was no "conscious effort" to exclude anything. I, again, was using the language in the article you provided. Given that course instructors/leads at Udacity contribute to and implement course material, I felt it was redundant to mention it, especially given it is a self-learning course in which there is no student-to-instructor interaction. We did not reach a consensus, which is what I just said, asking you again to look at Wikipedia's etiquette and guidelines. I was not using subjective nor unverifiable claims about anything, let alone in favor of my edits. I was pointing out that the same understanding I got from the source material is also what I got from watching the videos in the course (which are freely available for anyone to watch?) after I had already yielded to your fairly clear purpose here. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@User:SquareInARoundHold I had read you stating, "I've decided not to challenge your removal" as meaning our coming to a middle ground. 24.19.196.247 (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

No, as I said several times, I've simply given up as you continued to challenge me personally. I wish you the best and appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. SquareInARoundHole (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)