Hello List, I agree to Frederiks ideas and I would even go further: I would like to have a proposal-like system with votings for bot-runs installed with 8 of 15 for a single run and 16 of 32 for a regularly running bot.
Bye Lulu-Ann > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:08:50 +0200 > From: Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [OSM-talk] Code of conduct for automated (mass-) edits > To: Talk Openstreetmap <[email protected]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Hi, > > as OpenStreetMap draws more and more sophisticated users, we're also > seeing more scripts or, as they would be called in Wikipedia, "bots", > modifying data. > > I'm in a bit of a dilemma here. I have been using such scripts for a > while now (see my "Fixbot" page on the Wiki, or some past "undo" > actions). I have always felt that being able to use scripts gives me > considerably more power than the average user, and I have tried to > ensure that I use that power responsibly. > > That kind self-restraint is, however, not the norm for everyone who is > capable of doing automated modifications. We are now seeing automated > edits on a large scale, often un-discussed and un-documented. When you > ask the authors they respond with something like "oh, I read on the Wiki > that something should be so-and-so, so I thought I'll just change it". > > One example to which I took exception is that someone in Germany has > "corrected" a five-digit number of ways by inserting spaces in "ref" > tags (ref=A18 became ref=A 18) and/or changing "Strasse" in the name to > "Stra?e", which is the correct spelling (but nonetheless "Strasse" is > often found on signs). > > Now the actual changes done are not too bad; they are actually, ex post, > welcomed by the majority of people on talk-de. Had the author of the > script discussed the issue on talk-de before, he'd probably have > received an almost unanimous go-ahead from the community. > > Still, this issue makes me feel uneasy. We take pride in not having > fixed rules. If someone, somewhere, decides to tag a road as "Strasse" > not "Stra?e" because that's what's on the signs, however wrong > orthographically: Should someone else, armed with no local knowledge but > just a set of spelling rules, without prior discussion, run a script > that changes this? Is this not showing disrespect to other people's > contributions? > > Another issue is, *if* something is changed, *how* this is done. Lacking > 0.6's versioning, if anyone analyzes yesterday's planet file to find > ways he'd like to fix and uploads changed versions of each, chances are > he'll overwrite all those that have been changed between the generation > of the planet file and his script run. Whoever wants to run an automated > update should know exactly what he's doing, and be in a position to > exactly revert his changes should it turn out they were faulty. > > And still another thing is documentation; I somewhat expect that any > automated, large-scale change should be documented. When was it done, > what exactly was done, how many objects were affected, what were the > "source" and/or username settings for the job so that it can be > identified later. > > > When I issued words of caution on the German list, some people came to > me grinning and said "well there you have it, that's what happens when > you have a project without rules, and anyone making automated changes > has the same right to do so as anyone else". > > I don't think this is true; scripts or "bots" are a powerful means of > enforcing rules. If they proliferate in an uncontrolled fashion, we'll > soon have a number of mini dictators who have constructed their own set > of rules and will modify anything that dares to be different. The > philosopher Karl Popper has called this the "paradox of tolerance" - > even if you preach tolerance, your tolerance has to stop at intolerance. > So if we preach the freedom to tag whatever you want and how you want > it, that freedom has to stop if people start mass-changing existing data. > > > I am in favour of setting up a code of conduct for automated edits. The > key elements would be: > > 1. Make a plan of what you want to change, and discuss in relevant forum > (usu. mailing list). If there are many objections; drop the plan. If > there are few objections, maybe exempt certain areas or objects created > by certain people in order to respect their objections. Remember that > they can easily change things back again if you act against their will, > so don't even try to play the superiority card. > 2. Make sure your tools and knowledge are good: You have to be able to > revert your changes if something goes wrong, and you need to keep any > collateral damage to an absolute minimum. If you cannot guarantee that, > ask someone for help who can. > 3. Run the job. If it is something big or something you will probably do > more often, consider creating an extra account for it so it is easily > recognizable. > 4. Provide documentation that tells people what exactly you have done. > 5. Remember: With great power comes great responsibility. > > I would also accompany this by the notion that if you see an automated > edit that you believe has problems, and it has not been discussed or > documented, it's ok to revert it. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49?00'09" E008?23'33" > > -- Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
