Hi all,
This is in reference to the poll here: http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw
An idea: can we try to make this discussion more constructive? I have
tried to do so here, probably with mixed success. I am beginning to be
burdened with non-constructive messages and we really don't have time
for them. (If people are thinking of turning that comment on me, as an
ad hominem, again, please can we be more constructive!)
On 13/06/11 14:49, Dermot McNally wrote:
It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you
know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other
than the person who did it thinks it's news.
That is an interesting point. It does avoid the obvious question, do you
personally think it is news? But this is more of an issue for the
community than me.
Adam has chipped it to say the poll is worth putting on the front page
as news [6]. In this specific case, this satisfies Dermot's point that
news is news if other people think so.
It is an interesting idea to ensure independence of reporting to have a
link separate from the author, but in a "do-ocracy" of OSM, we perhaps
might want some flexibility in this. (And we will always have a risk of
sock puppets.) The main input on to that page is from the community, not
me. Your definition of news is actually rather unworkable too. I am sure
someone is crazy enough to agree that anything is news, so how do you
prevent spam based on your definition. I have attempted a working
definition below.
On 13/06/11 15:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
Do we all get
to put our subjective favourites at the top of the supposedly objective
list of News?
Many intellectuals have pointed out that objective new sources don't
exist - there is always a necessary slant or bias to any reporting [7].
Richard, as you are a journalist, I am surprised if you don't have
personal experience of this? Recalling a certain US news network with
the slogan "fair and balanced" and that ideal comes from a network that
is very partisan. If you are unhappy with what I have done, I suggest
you write some guidelines on how news should be edited. (On the other
hand, many don't want rigid rules in OSM.)
Until there are some guidelines, we might stop pretending the wiki news
is some sacred cow. I think the news section is a bit dry myself. The
fact that the number of relations passed an arbitrary number is hardly
"news" but it was recently reported. I would define news (that might be
put on the front page) as events that are topical, relevant to a broad
international group of contributors, it has impact on OSM and novelty. A
poll on the future of OSM meets these criteria easily. There are
probably better definitions of newsworthiness that any of us have
provided [8] anyway.
Sure. I care too. I know people who've voted on that poll precisely to
show that they do not support your current crusade. I've chosen not to
vote for that same reason.
Ok, I can't make you engage with my attempt to reform OSM. If we were
being constructive, specifically for this poll, can you tell me how I
can improve it? or is there some assumption you disagree with?
If there was some documentation on guidelines on what
constitutes news, Richard might have a point.
Briefly flicking through the previous news items, they comprise things
like statistics (e.g. 400,000 registered users), software releases,
changes to the OSM website, new hardware etc.
Concrete changes, not discussion. I can't see any precedent for an
unofficial poll being placed there.
Ok you have defined "news" based on what has historically appeared. This
seems to be rather clunky to me because it keeps us stuck in the past:
what we previous considered news is the only news we can ever have.
However, for the sake of argument, lets accept your definition. And if
we were to find that my post fits your definition of news, we can agree
it is indeed news. Good so far.
I looked through the old news, contrary to Richard's claim, there are
indeed links to discussions and a doodle poll. Specifically [1]:
1) "Usability improvements for osm.org? Tell us!"
2) "OSMF license change vote has started; unofficial community survey at
http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w";
3) "[...] comments may be submitted until March 20"
4) "The OpenStreetMap community petitions Google to resolve the legal
ambiguity of tracing from Google's aerial imagery." (Links to google
feedback site)
So it is clear that links to discussions ARE news, under Richard's
definition. I am surprised you didn't find the above links, and I can
only suggest you are more careful in researching your evidence.
I am beginning to think you, Richard, are trying to censor and obstruct
me, based on the following:
1. You have never edited the news template on the wiki before [2] but
did so to delete my message.
2. You stated you don't "support my crusade" and refuse to participate,
and apparently gloating that others are opposed to my view (see above)
3. The link to the poll is news under your definition, and my judgment
too, but you deleted it.
4. I asked people not to make a big deal of my discussions with OSMF
[3], which you immediately ignored without explanation [4].
Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise
words to avoid "endless discussions" and go do stuff. I think it is
possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere,
at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I
am not asking you to do much - I am just asking for you to lay off, please.
So now I hope we can agree that other people think the poll is news, and
that it is consistent with past news items, are there any other
_constructive_ comments regarding putting the poll on the wiki front page?
Regards,
TimSC
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/News_Archive
[2]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:News&limit=500&action=history
[3]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006134.html
[4]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006135.html
[5] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011752.html
[6] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058729.html
[7]
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#Criticisms
[8] http://journalism.about.com/od/reporting/a/newsworthy.htm
_______________________________________________
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
