Hi all, In the midst of the discussion about remote mapping, I couldn¹t help but notice this comment from Sarah:
"In my experience, the issue is not that OSM is not welcoming for woman but simply that it is not interesting enough for them." I was surprised to see this and I have to say that I disagree. I find it hard to believe that half the population isn¹t interested in mapping just because they are female; the active engagement of so many women in the OSM community certainly suggests otherwise. Maybe I am misreading the intent of that comment? If so, please disregard. If not, and I¹m reading this correctly, then may I suggest looking deeper to see if there are other factors (beyond pure lack of interest) preventing the women you know from taking an interest in OSM? Maybe there¹s a different engagement strategy you could consider? #InterestedEnoughToMap, Emily >From: Sarah Hoffmann <[email protected]> >To: Kate Chapman <[email protected]> >Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > >> Diversity to me has never just been gender. Though it has been shown >>that >> if you make a place welcoming to women it also makes it more inviting >>for >> other underrepresented groups. Intersectional feminism is about equality >> for everyone. > >This argument still has a sour taste to me. In my experience, the issue >is not that OSM is not welcoming for woman but simply that it is not >interesting enough for them. The outcome is the same but the actions to >take are vastly different. I do agree with you though, that finding >a solution to attract more woman will also show a way to attract other >underrepresented groups. After all, it is exactly the same argument as >above: the interests of the map makers and the potential map users >don't match. > > >Sarah _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
