Hi, On 08/30/2018 10:20 PM, Kevin Kenny wrote: > A problem here is that it gives us a tremendous black eye in the > press. I wonder how, moving forward, we can lessen the chances of > this sort of hate speech propagating off the project.
We can only speculate about the motives here - frankly my money is on "attention seeking teenager" who could just as well have labelled a city the "Weed Capital". Which would not have been hate speech and maybe not reported as widely, but not really any better. > Other projects > have found that having a mandatory review and moderation process for > new users is helpful, Some have, some not; the English Wikipedia, for example, has not, while the German Wikipedia has, to a degree. A move like this would have to be very carefully considered as it binds resources and reduces our ability to attract new mappers (a certain percentage of whom would not make that first hurdle). It is also a technical challenge: If the new signup creates a new object, and before this is reviewed someone else creates the same new object, what happens? If the new signup modifies an object and before the modification is reviewed someone else modifies a different object in a way hat would make both edits clash (e.g. buildings overlap), what happens? If we don't attract enough reviewers and new edits remain unpublished for days or even weeks...? Reducing the possible participation envelope of new mappers is certainly something that can be discussed, but it's not something we should do on a whim, and certainly not to please unspecified and scared "Powers That Be". Perhaps educating our users about the strengths and weaknesses of crowd-sourcing is another option. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ Talk-us mailing list Talk-us@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-us
