<html><head></head><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px"><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208852"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208853">Christoph, my</span> statement about the pointlessness of the discussion toward advancing diversity efforts in OSM, in no way compares to how demeaning the discussion itself is. You're not a victim. Dissecting an academic paper, rather than getting the point about diversity and offering to do something about it, it a stain on our community. </div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208852"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208856">Simon, the idea that this thread is not about diversity, but about "science" is absurd. </div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208857"><br clear="none" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208858"></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208859">I do agree that we can stop talking about it here.</div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208859"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208860"><span id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208861">-Mikel</span></div><div></div><div id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208807"> </div><div class="signature" id="yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_208839">* Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron</div> <div class="qtdSeparateBR"><br><br></div><div class="yahoo_quoted" style="display: block;"> <div style="font-family: Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div style="font-family: HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif; font-size: 16px;"> <div dir="ltr"><font size="2" face="Arial"> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 10:10 AM, Simon Poole <simon@poole.ch> wrote:<br></font></div> <br><br> <div class="y_msg_container"><div id="yiv6885514490"><div>
<div>The thread was mainly about bad science and how it effects the
perception of OSM in the public, including that it doesn't help in
addressing real issues.</div>
<div>Normally I would expect the moderators to suggest starting a new
thread if you want to discuss the issues around diversity and how
to address them instead of hijacking a thread with a different
topic, but they seem to be strangely absent<br clear="none">
</div>
<div>Simon<br clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv6885514490yqt5821107484" id="yiv6885514490yqt89355"><div class="yiv6885514490moz-cite-prefix">On 27.07.2017 14:41, Mikel Maron wrote:<br clear="none">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span>Takeaways</span></div>
<div id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110989">* Everyone
understands gender diversity is a problem</span></div>
<div id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110990">* Some of us
think it's very important to address, others think other
issues are more important at this moment</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_111051">* The dudes
arguing here among themselves about what's more important
and dissecting arguments are not doing much to address the
issue. </span></div>
<div dir="ltr" id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_111840">* The volume of
discussion and overly sensitive responses to details,
beating drums about our pet peeves, only shows that the key
issue of gender diversity is not something some of us want
to put energy into.</span></div>
<div id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110794"><span id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_111920">* The discussion
here doesn't matter. If we want to work on gender diversity,
let's go away from here and support the women and men who
have started good work on strategies at last year's SotM.</span></div>
<div id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110870"> </div>
<div class="yiv6885514490signature" id="yiv6885514490yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1501092934718_110783">* Mikel Maron
* +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron</div>
<div class="yiv6885514490qtdSeparateBR"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
<div class="yiv6885514490yahoo_quoted" style="display:block;">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue, Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, Lucida Grande, sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial" size="2"> On Thursday,
July 27, 2017 7:54 AM, Frederik Ramm
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" class="yiv6885514490moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" ymailto="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:frederik@remote.org"><frederik@remote.org></a> wrote:<br clear="none">
</font></div>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<div class="yiv6885514490y_msg_container">
<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:<br clear="none">
> While I was dismissive of her arguments four
years ago, now I see that <br clear="none">
> all of her points were valid, and are still
valid. <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I think that it is possible for an insider of
OpenStreetMap to look at<br clear="none">
Monica's work and see some valid points in there. But
try to switch off<br clear="none">
your background knowledge and look at her work. What
sticks with you is<br clear="none">
something like (quoting from a 3rd party web site that
introduces the talk):<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
"She looks specifically at the case of how "childcare"
was not approved<br clear="none">
as map category within OpenStreetMap."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This comes from her work massively exaggerating the
issue for effect,<br clear="none">
and being extremely sloppy with OSM background
research.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Reviewing her talk, the OSM part begins with her
showing group photos of<br clear="none">
past SotM conferences claiming "these are all men".
Which clearly isn't<br clear="none">
true (you just have to zoom in on the picture). Maybe
I'm putting the<br clear="none">
bar to high by measuring this with the "science"
yardstick, but it feels<br clear="none">
wrong to me. Do you want future scientific papers to
quote "according to<br clear="none">
<source>, no women have attended large OSM
gatherings before 2013"?<br clear="none">
Because that's what she says.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She then goes on to equate the number of different
values in the<br clear="none">
"amenity" key space with the importance of something
(arguing that<br clear="none">
because you have different amenity values for bars and
pubs it is clear<br clear="none">
that this is an important distinction); this is not
tenable as just<br clear="none">
slightly more research would have shown, there is no
correlation between<br clear="none">
the importance of something and the number of
different key values in<br clear="none">
the amenity space.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She then claims that "amenity=swingerclub" was the (1)
most recently (2)<br clear="none">
accepted (3) voted on (4) approved amenity - not a
single one of the<br clear="none">
numbered points is correct as far as I can see from
the Wiki history<br clear="none">
(but I invite readers to double check, I might have
missed some page<br clear="none">
renamings?).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Going forward, she gives listeners the impression that
a successful tag<br clear="none">
proposal was a requirement for being able to tag
features, which is<br clear="none">
plain wrong. At the very least, a non-misleading,
non-sensationalist<br clear="none">
presentation would have to mention that<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
(a) anyone can tag anything they find important,<br clear="none">
(b) this *may* be influenced by editor presets (which
didn't feature<br clear="none">
swingerclubs at the time and don't now)<br clear="none">
(c) what appears on the *map* is a different issue
again, and<br clear="none">
swingerclubs weren't on the map then and aren't now.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
(As a tiny nod towards the actual subject of this
thread, point "b" was<br clear="none">
addressed in Andrew Hall'S "Wikimedia Research
Showcase" presentation.)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She then goes on to discuss the amenity=childcare
proposal, which had<br clear="none">
been voted down in 2011. As you can see from<br clear="none">
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare&oldid=789581">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare&oldid=789581</a><br clear="none">
the proposal itself had been framed sloppily; it
claimed to be<br clear="none">
applicable to all age groups ("Example: 0-6") but
didn't explain in how<br clear="none">
far it was meant to replace the existing
amenity=kindergarten or just be<br clear="none">
for after-school/after-kindergarten care. A total of 9
people voted<br clear="none">
against the proposal; most because of this
technicality, and two because<br clear="none">
they would have preferred amenity=social_facility.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Did those 9 people vote because they "were ignorant"
or "didn't care"?<br clear="none">
Maybe, but in my eyes the fault lies just as much with
the proposal<br clear="none">
itself; the confusion with "kindergarten" and the
question of whether<br clear="none">
"social_facility" would not be better didn't come from
nowhere and they<br clear="none">
should have been addressed, the proposal refined, and
brought to vote in<br clear="none">
a better shape.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Do voters have a duty to pass a badly done proposal
when it is for a<br clear="none">
good thing? Or are they right to shoot down a badly
written proposal?<br clear="none">
The "post mortem" on the page says "Voters have either
not grasped this,<br clear="none">
or have considered the fact of overlap sufficient to
reject the proposal<br clear="none">
without taking the time to propose a proper
alternative." - but is it<br clear="none">
the voter's responsibility to propose a proper
alternative?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Monica Stephens makes the proposal sound less
confusing in her talk -<br clear="none">
she explicitly claims the proposal was for childcare
for kids that are<br clear="none">
"not of kindergarten age", when the proposal
explicitly lists "0-6" as a<br clear="none">
valid age example. So her listeners will not be able
to understand the<br clear="none">
confusion.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She then says "OpenStreetMap is a democratic society
where people vote<br clear="none">
on which amenities will appear on the base map" which
is, of course,<br clear="none">
wrong in several ways (see my a/b/c list above).<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
In criticising the "against" voters, she picks out a
few that have<br clear="none">
spelling mistakes and adds a prominent "[sic]" after
each "refered" or<br clear="none">
"usefull" - something that may be scientifically
correct but speaks of a<br clear="none">
desire to belittle these people for whom English is
not their first<br clear="none">
language. She doesn't quote any of the "against" votes
that say that the<br clear="none">
overlap needs to be explained, she only quotes those
who believe the new<br clear="none">
thing is identical to kindergarten. And the correct
tally of 9 "no" and<br clear="none">
5 "yes" votes becomes, in her talk, "voting ended and
was 15 to 4". Just<br clear="none">
sloppy?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She then proceeds with some anti-German slurs,
claiming that "all but<br clear="none">
3... or 5 ... of the brothels in OpenStreetMap are in
Germany, the rest<br clear="none">
are in Amsterdam". Now this "American values are the
right values"<br clear="none">
attitude is something I could go on about for a while
(are more children<br clear="none">
harmed by brothels or by guns) but I'll save that for
another time; I<br clear="none">
have counted the objects tagged amenity=brothel in OSM
at the beginning<br clear="none">
of 2012 and found 510 in Germany and a total of 825
world-wide, so I<br clear="none">
don't know how she counted but apparently it wasn't
all that important<br clear="none">
to her. Just a little harmless fun at the expense of
all those German<br clear="none">
and Dutch perverts, right, let's all have a good
laugh? At the same time<br clear="none">
there were 16,693 amenity=kindergarten and 51
amenity=baby_hatch mapped<br clear="none">
in Germany, numbers which might have served to put the
whole thing into<br clear="none">
perspective - sadly her listeners are denied that
piece of information<br clear="none">
which a responsibly scientist should have shared.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She concludes that "OSM is dominated by male
contributions" (which is<br clear="none">
correct) "and excludes the other 1/2" (which I'd argue
with). She says:<br clear="none">
"Women cannot really map their local community; their
local information<br clear="none">
is particularly excluded from this base map and from
what features are<br clear="none">
(inaudible) in OpenStreetMap."<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
This is a very broad, I'd almost say outrageous,
claim, and not at all<br clear="none">
supported by the evidence she has provided, even if
that evidence were<br clear="none">
factual.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
She proceeds to claim that "... all of these options
for child-care,<br clear="none">
day-care, have failed in OpenStreetMap, continually".
Again, not at all<br clear="none">
supported by any evidence. She again claims that
"swingerclub was<br clear="none">
democratically approved without a single opposing vote
in 2012", when<br clear="none">
indeed no vote on that tag has taken place, ever.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
So, to close this off, Ilya I think you are doing
OpenStreetMap a huge<br clear="none">
disservice by taking a talk that is so full of false
claims, so biased<br clear="none">
and misleading, and publicly say that "all of the
points are valid".<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
There is a valid point in that it would be desirable
to achieve gender<br clear="none">
parity in OpenStreetMap and that this would make for
better discussions,<br clear="none">
better results, a better map. But almost every other
point made in that<br clear="none">
talk is at least exaggerated for effect, if not
blatantly false.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I'm afraid I have now wasted two hours of my life
doing what Christoph<br clear="none">
warned of, namely heightening the visibility of
Monica's work by trying<br clear="none">
to point out the flaws in it, and I agree it would be
nice if we could<br clear="none">
ensure that if researches criticize OSM in the future
- and there's<br clear="none">
certainly a lot to criticize - they at least get their
facts right.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I want to live in a society where everyone is free to
say their opinion,<br clear="none">
but I don't want to live in a society where everyone
can claim facts<br clear="none">
that are simply and demonstratively wrong and not be
called out for it.<br clear="none">
There's too much of that out there already.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Bye<br clear="none">
Frederik<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
-- <br clear="none">
Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>
## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
<div class="yiv6885514490yqt9049939335" id="yiv6885514490yqtfd55650"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
_______________________________________________<br clear="none">
osmf-talk mailing list<br clear="none">
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none">
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" target="_blank" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="none">
<fieldset class="yiv6885514490mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br clear="none">
<pre>_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" class="yiv6885514490moz-txt-link-abbreviated" ymailto="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" class="yiv6885514490moz-txt-link-freetext" target="_blank" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote></div>
<br clear="none">
</div></div><div class="yqt5821107484" id="yqt80696">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">osmf-talk mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org" href="mailto:osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org">osmf-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk</a><br clear="none"></div><br><br></div> </div> </div> </div></div></body></html>