[OSM-Science] Special Issue on "Advances in Applications of Volunteered Geographic Information" in the journal Remote Sensing

[Christoph Hormann]

>
> @Christoph:
> > What i find interesting in the comments received is that there is
> > very little critique of my analysis and arguments in substance and
> > most resposes seem to concentrate on justifying use of the term
> > despite agreeing with my analysis.  That i would frankly consider
> > non-scientific.  For real progress in science you need to question
> > the assumptions and preconceptions of your field.  If you use an
> > evidently non-fitting or inprecise term because you are used to it,
> > because all your peers do so or because an important authority in
> > your field (Goodchild) does so or for similar reasons you are not
> > doing that.
>
> I'm quite sad about what you seem to be implying here. It's a little
> offensive, too. 

I am sorry if you felt offended, this was not my intention.

My mail was not specifically meant as a reply to you although it was 
formally sent as a reply to your mail.  I intended to indicate this 
with my introduction.

I should probably have more specifically expressed my appreciation for 
you accepting that VGI is a problematic term that might often not be 
suitable or meaningful in how it is used.  That is the main thing i 
intended to accomplish.  And it would be fairly arrogant of me to 
expect people to adjust what they do based exclusively on a critical 
blog post by me.

As to the question if it might make sense to continue using the term VGI 
despite its shortcomings - that is a question i don't really feel 
qualified to provide advise on.  I put it very bluntly in what you 
cited above that i would consider this non-scientific.  But writing 
about scientific work is as much about human communication as it is 
about science and comes with lots of social implications and i don't 
know enough about the communicative environment in this specific domain 
of science.  I stand by my suggestion to critically reflect on any such 
use of the term but i don't want to categorically suggest dropping any 
use of it.  Language of course offers a lot of nuances to distance 
yourself from a term you use to various degrees.

Regarding the style in which i phrased my critique.  I deliberately did 
not adjust to the communication style used by main occupation 
scientists because to those for whom this would be a prerequisite i 
don't think my critique would be able to reach anyway.  I am glad and 
positively surprised that there is a reaction now and this speaks 
highly of those who listen and react to my critique.

-- 
Christoph Hormann
http://www.imagico.de/