<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/11/2017 17:52, Mikel Maron wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1639702221.449151.1510941143434@mail.yahoo.com">
<div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial,
sans-serif;font-size:16px;">
<div>
<div>Yes, doing this is hard work, and appreciate the job
WeeklyOSM has to do. Point is, statements like "<span
style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: "Helvetica
Neue", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size:
medium;">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.</span></div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well to be fair, the article as written didn't actually say that -
it said "is perceived by many as unreasonable".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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").<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Andy<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>