<div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><.... that conclusion is wrong because even if we were to</span><br></div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">implement a measure that you have no clear picture of, it could still</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">solve a problem ...></span><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><br></span></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Even when shooting with hail one might miss the target :-)</font></div>
<div><br></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><Do you simply think that this additional transparency is "not proven to</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">be necessary" and you are against any rule that is not proven to be</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">necessary, or do you see an outright downside to transparency ("if we</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">
<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">were to require this disclosure then there would be less good mapping"</span><br style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13px">or so)?></span><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div>Transparancy could be an explicit part of our core values ( draft: <a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Future#Core_values">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Future#Core_values</a> ). But in my opinion these would apply to any mapper regardless if they are paid for mapping or not. I would for example prefer a paid mapper who is willing to communicate (aspect of respect) over an unpaid mapper who is not open to communicate to other mappers. I experience the latter too often, which does hurt the data quality. Thát is a problem.</div>
<div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2014-06-19 11:11 GMT+02:00 Frederik Ramm <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org" target="_blank">frederik@remote.org</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<div class=""><br>
On 06/19/2014 12:26 AM, Johan C wrote:<br>
> Since there is still no clear picture on the exact nature of the<br>
> (potential) problem for OSM<br>
<br>
</div>The problem that Wikipedia tries to solve is a lack of transparency;<br>
they want to make sure that, where compensation is involved, the<br>
potential motives of contributors are out in the open.<br>
<br>
They are not saying that it is bad to be paid for editing Wikipedia; nor<br>
are they saying that you have to request permission for paid Wikipedia<br>
editing. They just want the larger community, who might come to judge<br>
whether an edit has been made in good faith, to know the important facts.<br>
<br>
I think it was you who invoked comparisons to political processes and<br>
systems recently; you might compare this to rules that exist in many<br>
countries where members of parliament have to disclose any extra income<br>
they receive from other jobs. A member of parliament doesn't have to ask<br>
for permission if they earn money on the side but they have to disclose<br>
it, and the public can then decide whether they find this totally ok, or<br>
whether they believe that this flow of money could interfere with that<br>
person's contribution to parliament.<br>
<br>
I think that a similar transparency policy - disclose if you map for<br>
compensation - would make sense in OSM as well. (I also think - but that<br>
is more of a practical matter - that it would in some cases be very<br>
helpful to know that a group of seemingly separate accounts are actually<br>
controlled by the same corporate entity.)<br>
<div class=""><br>
> it's indeed very wise not to implement a<br>
> solution, because logically that solution wouldn't solve the (potential)<br>
> problem.<br>
<br>
</div>First of all, that conclusion is wrong because even if we were to<br>
implement a measure that you have no clear picture of, it could still<br>
solve a problem - on purpose for those who understood it, and<br>
accidentally for those who didn't understand it.<br>
<br>
But as I pointed out earlier, you do not need to wait until your house<br>
is on fire to solve the fire problem; you can try to *avoid* the problem<br>
occurring in the first place.<br>
<br>
A storm is forecast and your neighbour closes their windows; you are new<br>
to the area and you would really appreciate a more thorough analysis on<br>
if and how a storm would affect your house since it is built a little<br>
different than your neighbour's; maybe you won't even be affected by the<br>
weather... but would it really be considered "unwise" to close your windows?<br>
<br>
It has been said by some people in this discussion - and I don't<br>
remember if that was your particular position as well - that the<br>
motivation behind an edit is irrelevant to OSM because, in contrast to<br>
Wikipedia, we only collect verifiable facts, and why bother who enters<br>
these and why?<br>
<br>
I don't subscribe to that point of view, and I will discuss this in a<br>
different thread.<br>
<br>
I do maintain that the additional transparency requirements that<br>
Wikipedia have introduced would serve OSM well, and I fail to see a<br>
downside to them.<br>
<br>
Do you simply think that this additional transparency is "not proven to<br>
be necessary" and you are against any rule that is not proven to be<br>
necessary, or do you see an outright downside to transparency ("if we<br>
were to require this disclosure then there would be less good mapping"<br>
or so)?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
Bye<br>
Frederik<br>
<br>
--<br>
Frederik Ramm ## eMail <a href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>