> I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just
>wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the
>arguments for and against.
It's just not ok to call out an individual like that. It's not appropriate, not
correct and not helpful. The dynamic of the discussion be expressed much
better, with full information, without disrespecting each other. I'm happy to
find ways to help WeeklyOSM if you all agree that the issue of impartiality is
an important and serious one to take on.
* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
On Friday, November 17, 2017, 1:35:58 PM EST, Andy Townsend
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote:
Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job WeeklyOSM has to do.
Point is, statements like "Yuri is as unreasonable as before and tries to
ignore all the unwritten rules in OSM" is inappropriate, and there are many
better ways to summarize the topic.
Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that - it said "is
perceived by many as unreasonable".
Full disclosure - I'm an occasional contributor to the weekly OSM newsletter.
I didn't add or edit that article (actually I didn't contribute to any last
week - you can usually tell the ones I've written because they have more links
and perhaps too many words in them), but although perhaps a little over-concise
I don't think you could argue with "perceived by many as unreasonable" - just
wade through the recent archives of the talk mailing list again and weigh the
arguments for and against. Also, there is such a thing as "fake balance".
Imagine you're running an article about someone who's discussing ways to offset
the problems caused by the Mercator projection; you don't then need to also
quote someone from the Flat Earth Society for the sake of impartiality.
Secondly - and this is a point that applies to many other areas of OSM too -
there seem far more people willing to contribute their copy-editing skills here
on a mailing list than actually helping put _next_ week's newsletter together.
It's not a new phenomenon - a short while ago WeeklyOSM had a complaint from an
OSM-centric organisation (let's call it "X") that "we never report on what's
happening with X". It was politely suggested to the complainer that perhaps
they ought to volunteer themselves; then they could submit all the articles
they like. It went very quiet after that.
It's a similar situation with technical discussions elsewhere ("you ought to
render X like Y", "you ought to change how the osm.org website works so I don't
have to build infrastructure for $project", "Nominatim ought to support my
$odd_non_address_search_example").
Although there's always room for improvement, much of what's around OSM now
has a surprisingly low bar for entry, whether it's creating a map based on OSM
data that shows $favourite_but_quite_rare_tag, or answering questions on the
help site or forum, or as here, volunteering to submit and review a few news
articles a week.
Best Regards,
Andy
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
