Gatekeeping the Work Required to Have an Opinion  Full Document Contents/Articles/Gatekeeping the Work Required to Have an Opinion.md, Gatekeeping the Work Required to Have an Opinion, Morten Rand-Hendriksen. > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: > - #WordPress > - #OpenSource > - #CommunityEngagement > Author: [Morten Rand-Hendriksen] > Source: [LinkedIn](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gatekeeping-work-required-have-opinion-morten-rand-hendriksen/) > Reference: [Link](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gatekeeping-work-required-have-opinion-morten-rand-hendriksen/) > date created: 2024-10-10 19:00 > > # Title: "Gatekeeping and the Work Required to Have an Opinion" > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#summary) - [📖 Main Content](#main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#notes) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#deib-assessment) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#hypotheses) - [📖 References](#references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#action-items) - [❓ Questions](#questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#future-research) - [💡 Implications](#implications) - [🎯 Conclusion](#conclusion) --- ## 📝 Summary: Morten Rand-Hendriksen explores the concept of gatekeeping within the WordPress community, emphasizing that individuals are often required to perform a certain amount of "work" to have a valid opinion in discussions around open-source contributions. He argues that this gatekeeping creates barriers for those who wish to engage meaningfully in the community but do not have the time or resources to meet these standards. The article reflects on how such practices affect inclusivity and the future of open-source engagement. --- ## 📖 Main Content: ### 🗒️ Notes - **Gatekeeping Concept**: - The idea that only those who have made significant contributions are allowed to have a say in discussions. - This creates an exclusivity barrier for those new to the community or without the means to contribute at the expected level. - **Work Requirement**: - The notion that individuals must “earn” their voice in the community by proving their commitment through action, which limits access to newcomers or those with fewer resources. - **Impacts on Inclusivity**: - Gatekeeping hinders inclusivity by establishing barriers to entry, making it harder for diverse voices to participate. - **Open Source Ideals vs. Reality**: - While open-source projects promote inclusivity and collaboration, the reality often involves social and structural barriers that contradict these values. - **Future of Engagement**: - Calls for a reconsideration of how contributions are valued, with an emphasis on creating more accessible pathways for people to join conversations and contribute to projects without needing to "prove" their worth. --- ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: 1. **Visual Learners**: - **Present**: No diagrams or visual aids included. - **Improve**: Introduce infographics showing the flow of participation and the barriers faced due to gatekeeping. 2. **Aural Learners**: - **Present**: None. - **Improve**: Consider embedding podcasts or offering audio versions of the discussion to accommodate auditory preferences. 3. **Verbal Learners**: - **Present**: Strong language usage and examples make it easier for verbal learners to grasp the concepts. - **Improve**: Add more analogies and case studies to further reinforce the ideas. 4. **Physical Learners**: - **Present**: No interactive elements. - **Improve**: Include actionable tasks or real-world examples where readers can explore the impact of gatekeeping. 5. **Logical Learners**: - **Present**: Clear, logical breakdown of the effects of gatekeeping. - **Improve**: Introduce data or metrics to quantify the impact of these barriers on community participation. 6. **Social Learners**: - **Present**: The article encourages engagement in broader community discussions. - **Improve**: Incorporate more opportunities for group discussion or online forums to foster social learning. 7. **Solitary Learners**: - **Present**: The reflection-based tone supports solitary learners. - **Improve**: Add journaling prompts for readers to reflect on their own experiences with gatekeeping. --- ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Screen Reader Compatibility**: The article could be improved by ensuring that any visuals or graphs (if added) have proper alt-text descriptions. - **Keyboard Navigation**: No interactive elements; navigation should be possible with a keyboard. - **Contrast and Readability**: Adequate contrast and readable font sizes. - **Text Resizing**: Content is scalable without breaking the layout. --- ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: The article focuses on inclusivity and highlights the importance of diverse voices in open-source. **Improve**: Include examples from underrepresented regions or contributors outside traditional spheres of influence. - **Inclusive Language**: The language is inclusive and accessible, avoiding technical jargon. **Improve**: Define key concepts for those unfamiliar with community-specific terms. - **Neurodiversity Support**: Could benefit from shorter paragraphs and more structured bullet points for neurodiverse readers. **Improve**: Break up the text into more digestible sections. - **Representation**: The article focuses on the general issue of gatekeeping but lacks specific stories from diverse individuals. **Improve**: Include personal stories or testimonials from a broader range of community members. --- ## 🧪 Hypotheses: - **Hypothesis 1**: If gatekeeping continues in open-source communities, participation from underrepresented groups will remain low. - **Hypothesis 2**: Reducing the "work" requirement for participation will lead to a more diverse and engaged community. --- ## 📖 References: - Rand-Hendriksen, Morten. "Gatekeeping and the Work Required to Have an Opinion." LinkedIn, 2024. [Link](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gatekeeping-work-required-have-opinion-morten-rand-hendriksen/) --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. **Gatekeeping refers to the idea that only those who have made notable contributions or put in substantial work are allowed to participate in community discussions, creating an unspoken barrier for new or underrepresented contributors.** - Paraphrase: Gatekeeping is the practice of requiring significant contributions before allowing participation in discussions, effectively limiting access for newcomers or marginalized voices. 2. **Open-source projects promote inclusivity and collaboration, but the reality often involves gatekeeping, which can contradict these ideals and hinder true diversity and engagement within the community.** - Paraphrase: While open-source communities claim to foster inclusivity, gatekeeping practices frequently prevent the realization of these values, blocking diverse engagement and participation. --- ## 📰 Newsletter: 🔔 **Gatekeeping in WordPress: A Barrier to Inclusivity?** Morten Rand-Hendriksen's latest article highlights a crucial topic for our WordPress community—gatekeeping. While open source promises inclusivity, Morten discusses how certain barriers, such as the "work" required to have a voice in discussions, limit engagement. Let's consider how we can create a more inclusive WordPress space where everyone feels empowered to contribute. [Read more](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/gatekeeping-work-required-have-opinion-morten-rand-hendriksen/) --- ## ✅ Action Items: - Evaluate how gatekeeping may affect contributor onboarding within the WordPress community. - Create spaces where new contributors can share their opinions without needing to meet unwritten "work" expectations. - Encourage discussions in your next community meeting on how to reduce barriers for diverse voices. --- ## ❓ Questions: - How does gatekeeping affect the long-term sustainability of open-source communities? - What strategies can be implemented to break down these barriers and foster true inclusivity? --- ## 🔮 Future Research: - Study the impact of reducing contribution requirements on community participation in open-source projects. - Investigate how different open-source communities handle the balance between gatekeeping and inclusivity. --- ## 💡 Implications: Breaking down gatekeeping barriers could lead to a more diverse, engaged, and sustainable open-source community. Without these barriers, more contributors from underrepresented groups may feel empowered to participate, bringing new perspectives and innovations to the ecosystem. --- ## 🎯 Conclusion: Gatekeeping in the WordPress community and open-source projects creates barriers for newcomers and diverse voices, limiting participation and inclusivity. To build a truly open community, it's essential to rethink these practices and create more accessible pathways for individuals to contribute and share their opinions. <!-- deep-read:sections end --> ## Highlights -  photo by Ana Flávia Morten Rand-HendriksenTech Educator | Keynote Speaker | Pragmatic Futurist | Critical Writer | Dad In leadership, few warning bells should ring louder than that of someone claiming another person has not done the work required to have an opinion. That's not to say everyone's entitled to an opinion; It's to point out anyone who sees themselves an arbiter of the worth of the opinions of others has fallen victim to meritocratic hubris, "the tendency of winners to inhale too deeply of their success" as explained by Michael Sandell: Some content could not be imported from the original document. [View content ↗](https://media.licdn.com/embeds/media.html?src=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FdRolGQ3QJPE%3Ffeature%3Dapi&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DdRolGQ3QJPE&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube) One day, several years ago, I opened Slack to find a message from someone I up until that point held great respect for. It read as follows (slightly edited for anonymity): > "I really do try to give you the benefit of the doubt (...) but it's not clear that you're doing the work required to have an opinion on many of the areas you seem to feel strongly about in the [Charlie Munger sense](https://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Ffs%2Eblog%2F2013%2F04%2Fthe-work-required-to-have-an-opinion%2F&urlhash=V8f5&trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_little-text-block)." It is rare to experience someone exposing their true selves to this degree, and when it happens it is incumbent upon us to act accordingly. This was my last interaction with this person. The principle referenced in the message is a bit more nuanced than what was conveyed. Here's the full quote for reference: > “The ability to destroy your ideas rapidly instead of slowly when the occasion is right is one of the most valuable things. You have to work hard on it. Ask yourself what are the arguments on the other side. It’s bad to have an opinion you’re proud of if you can’t state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents. This is a great mental discipline.” — Charlie Munger Munger is absolutely right: To successfully argue any opinion, you need a good understanding of the opposing opinion, otherwise you cannot know whether your opinion is justified. But he is also absolutely wrong: To suggest "it's bad to have an opinion you're proud of if you can't state the arguments for the other side better than your opponents" is absurd. This type of thinking only holds water in a debate competition or in a particular type of high-stakes business dealings of which Munger, an [American billionaire investor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Munger?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_little-text-block), is familiar. And wielded indiscriminately, as in the aforementioned example, this opinion (because it is an opinion) can become a form of gatekeeping where those in power choose to discard any opinion not in line with their own as uninformed and therefore irrelevant. Interestingly, Munger's stance seems more nuanced and softer than it appears in that singular quote. Consider this: > “We all are learning, modifying, or destroying ideas all the time. Rapid destruction of your ideas when the time is right is one of the most valuable qualities you can acquire. You must force yourself to consider arguments on the other side.” — Charlie Munger ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01j9wmc539sg9n6yc93qj08mrp)) - "forming an opinion is a constant exercise of iteration through testing the idea against opposing views and improving your argument." ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01j9wme423bpegmxt49xaxy1g8)) - One of the things I've learned is the value of a leader who enters into conversation with dissenting voices to understand their point of view, where they're coming from, and finds ways to address their concerns (even when that means saying "no"). ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01j9wmekrcavqetydm96cff9e1)) - You never did the work required to understand my point of view, or those of many others. That doesn't mean your opinions were better, or that other opinions were better than yours; It means you will never know. That's your loss. Inhale less deeply of your own success my friend. Find grace in humility. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01j9wmfqdyrggxtz5hymgk7eh2))