[Tagging] psychics (was: tagging religion-based access)
pla16021 at gmail.com
Wed Jul 4 23:16:51 UTC 2018
On Wed, Jul 4, 2018 at 11:59 PM, Jmapb <jmapb at gmx.com> wrote:
> This reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask the list... I've got
> a lot of psychics in the area. I've been tagging them shop=psychic because
> that's what the signs say, but I don't really feel OSM ought to be
> endorsing unverifiable claims of supernatural power. shop=charlatan seems a
> little judgemental. So I was considering changing them to
> shop=fortune_teller. I think this will cover psychics, palmists,
> tea-leafists, tarot readers, etc. What do people think?
In my opinion they're charlatans. Because if any of them could actually do
what they claim to be able to do, James Randi
would have given them a million dollars. And that would be just the start
as scientists around the world queued up to
investigate. Few of them took up Randi's challenge, and all that did so
In my opinion, the people who go to psychics are fools.
The fools that pay charlatans WANT to pay charlatans and want to be able to
find them. So we do them both a
dis-service by tagging psychics as anything other than they purport to be.
I don't think we should be in the business
of concealing things for the good of other people. If a garage does shoddy
repairs, it's still a garage and it's not for
us to say otherwise.
There's also a legal aspect to it. Much as you (or I) might like to tag a
psychic as shop=charlatan, you'd open yourself up
to a libel suit.
All that said, there's no much point in proliferating values.to cover all
the different types of fortune-telling, because there
are too many of them, such as reading chicken entrails and the like. So
fortune_telling seems like a reasonable blanket
term that doesn't imply any skepticism. Of course, we're then going to get
subtags like fortune_teller:type=* (I can see
into the future).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Tagging