<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
</head>
<body>
I would suggest that this is part of a wider malaise that the mission of the wiki has become unclear.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Andrew
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> Roland Olbricht <roland.olbricht@gmx.de><br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 December 2017 08:42:46<br>
<b>To:</b> osm-talk<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [OSM-talk] Wiki Proposals: An OSM Echo Chamber?</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div class="BodyFragment"><font size="2"><span style="font-size:10pt;">
<div class="PlainText">Hi all,<br>
<br>
We recently had an experienced and productive community member, Ilya,<br>
putting a lot of time in a Wiki Proposal just to see the whole process <br>
fail. Given the feedback from the process, this has been due to a whole <br>
bunch of hard-to-control problems<br>
- the whole thing has been too complex<br>
- the wording did cause misunderstandings<br>
- attempt to discuss the matter in an unsuitable medium<br>
<br>
If even an experienced member cannot handle the process then we should <br>
reconsider whether the process of Wiki Proposals makes sense at all.<br>
<br>
I suggest to replace the Proposal process by three more specialized<br>
and therefore much simpler processes. They are structured by what they <br>
can affect.<br>
<br>
In particular, the discussion should go to better suited places than the <br>
infamous Wiki page discussion shadow pages:<br>
<br>
Ilya complained that at the wiki discussion page turned into a complete <br>
mess of "56K text". I do agree that the wiki page is a hard-to-read <br>
mess, but yet it has only the content of 10-30 messages.<br>
There had even been expressed deprecation that the discussion spilled <br>
into the voting section because it is so difficult to read.<br>
<br>
For comparison: My mail client currently handles more than 100'000 <br>
messages and is still fast and comfortable to use. Even in the forum <br>
where users are stuck with what the web interface allows, it is easy to <br>
have discussions with some hundred responses.<br>
<br>
This should remind us that the wiki discussion facility is unsuited for <br>
any nontrivial discussion but it disguises as sufficient discussion <br>
facility.<br>
<br>
Note that on the same time there is a group of 350 community members<br>
who have indicated to be interested in public transport. Ilya stated as <br>
a reson that the corresponding mailing list has "less than 3 messages" <br>
per month. The content equivalence of "3 messages" on a wiki discussion <br>
page already would make the impression of a heated discussion. <br>
Apparently the wiki discussion pages have distracted him from the real <br>
audience.<br>
<br>
Please note:<br>
It does not make sense to discuss the redesign of one communication <br>
channel in another communication channel. But the wiki does not have a <br>
suitable place to discuss the issue. Hence I cross-post to the forum to <br>
at least reach also a large portion of the less tech-savvy community <br>
members.<br>
<br>
I suggest the following three specialized replacements for the Proposal <br>
process:<br>
<br>
=== Distinguished Documentation ===<br>
<br>
OSM could profit in a lot of cases from a good how-to map for particular <br>
subjects. But at the same time exists poor documentation and people do <br>
not necessary know which to trust. Writing a good documentation will <br>
become more rewarding if we can offer a process to indicate general <br>
acclaim and distinguish excellent documentation.<br>
<br>
The voting confirms that the claims of the documentation reflect actual <br>
mapping practice. That way, it makes the effort a distinguished <br>
documentation.<br>
<br>
It des not affect any existing wiki pages.<br>
It does not affect the OSM database.<br>
<br>
=== Wiki Cleanup ===<br>
<br>
Amongst the real problems of OSM is that our wiki documentation has lots <br>
of poorly maintained pages. There exist even contradictions between <br>
different pages. For an unexperienced users it is difficult to figure <br>
out which wiki pages are really applicable.<br>
<br>
We need a decision process which of the contradictive statements can be <br>
discarded. The hurdles should not be too high because we generally do <br>
have too few maintenance of the wiki content. Nonetheless, as this does <br>
give some rulesets a spin in favour of others, it should be subject to a <br>
voting.<br>
<br>
There should be left a success notice after the cleanup has actually <br>
been done.<br>
<br>
The document must state which wiki pages are considered authoriative.<br>
It should state which wiki pages are to be changed.<br>
It can list the used tags, tagging combinations, or data constellations <br>
that are in scope of the document at all.<br>
It should state which used tags, tagging combinations, or data <br>
constellations will after the change newly contradict the wiki.<br>
<br>
Affects the wiki.<br>
Does not affect the OSM database.<br>
<br>
=== Tag Disambiguation ===<br>
<br>
Sometimes different people tag different types of objects with the same <br>
tags. This is a problem because you do no longer know what is really <br>
there. It is the core concern of the old Proposal process.<br>
Given that backwards compatbility is nowadays an important virtue,<br>
the preferred solution is to add an extra tag to distinguish the <br>
different situations.<br>
<br>
The voting is to check that the disambiguation is logically sound<br>
and that it covers the vast majority of applicable constellations.<br>
<br>
Affects the wiki: the description of the affected tags and tag <br>
combinations are changed.<br>
Affect the OSM database: mappers are adviced to systematically change <br>
tags in the course of local maintenance.<br>
<br>
=== Remarks ===<br>
<br>
There are other purposes advertised on the pages of the Proposal <br>
process. Most notably an invitation for general discussion.<br>
<br>
I do discourage them.<br>
From all the communication media we have in OSM the wiki is least <br>
suitable for discussions, as explained in the beginning.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Roland<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
talk mailing list<br>
talk@openstreetmap.org<br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a><br>
</div>
</span></font></div>
</body>
</html>