[Osmf-talk] DWG survey on organized editing
chris_hormann at gmx.de
Mon Oct 2 19:11:43 UTC 2017
On Monday 02 October 2017, Stefan Keller wrote:
> I just remember e.g. choices something like "requires documented
> instructions" (-1) and "requires full real name" (-2).
The questions you refer to are probably:
"Instructions to the paid/organised team must be available for
inspection by the mapping community."
"A paid/organised mapper must disclose their identity (real name)."
To be answered with one of:
Strongly agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly disagree, No answer
I guess you could reverse the statements and make them:
"Paid/organised teams may receive private instructions on how to map
things without these being made known to the mapping community."
"A paid/organised mapper may map under a pseudonym and is not obliged to
disclose their identity (real name)."
But i don't think this would be any better and it would be pretty
confusing. Keep in mind this is a survey on a possible policy
*regulating* organized editing, it is therefore logical that ideas you
are asked to agree or disagree with are formulated as regulating
statements. So in a way - and to use your original image - such a
survey is inherently biased because it will evaluate a spectrum of
opinions somewhere between 0 (no regulation at all) and 2 (strict
regulation of any organized activity). I am not sure how to extend
this to a '-2' - maybe require OSM community members to do a certain
percentage of their mapping work for organized editing stakeholders?
How would you ask for the participant's opinion on a real name
More information about the osmf-talk