Minh Nguyen <m...@nguyen.cincinnati.oh.us> writes: > For what it's worth, the argument about transparency would probably be > more effective if it were actually an upfront expectation that applies > to everyone. As it is, anyone could simply set source=survey or > local_knowledge on their changeset and call it a day. > > Unless I take the time to take more polished photos along my daily > walk and upload them to Wikimedia Commons or Flickr with the correct > metadata, my photos are copyrighted, all rights reserved, as > unpublished works. The same goes with my field notes, which I've long > deleted as soon as I finish mapping, never to be recovered by a > fact-checker. Sometimes I'm left wondering if I made a typo until I > return to the spot. > > We could ask if the honor code should apply to such a prolific editing > team. But do we actually have a problem with Lyft fabricating edits? I > haven't seen evidence of that; it would be quite surprising for a > company so invested in our project.
I don't mean to imply that Lyft is adding fake data. Sure, I get it that individual people do not document their photos and paper notes. But those are individual people with their own notes, not an organized/paid edit backed by a large organization. For an individual, it's "I saw stuff and too pictures probably recently". My point is really that organized editing, paid editing, automated edits, etc. should have a higher bar to basically document what they are doing.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
