[Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
Tobias Zwick
osm at westnordost.de
Sat May 25 00:52:41 UTC 2019
Sorry in hindsight I should have left out the last paragraph, please ignore it. I would rather not discuss concrete suggestions for software but collect ideas for certain modes of communications that may make constructive communication happen more.
On 25/05/2019 02:28, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>
> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they tend towards not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want to litter the conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, as someone posing a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like this one), you never know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if everyone is like "ok sounds good".
> Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most people are actually fine with, to a consent.
>
> 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, you simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice this and state your reasons. So, I think simply a 👌 "sounds good" button, aka 👍 "like" (facebook) or 👏 "clap" (medium.com) will make a big difference. (Did you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki recently? Use it!) This will make it much easier also for people who usually just lurk on the mailing list and don't feel they want to actively participate in the discussion to give the people who write some feedback.
>
> 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the overall communication culture to get more people on board.
>
> 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this thread somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from the openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for example https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like
>
> 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, no further registration required.
>
> 3. Moderation and Edits.
>
> 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important.
>
> 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to see that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to keep the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will stay forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by those that see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just stay there, even if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the discussion. This is the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't underestimate emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html ). So, my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really.
>
> 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. Especially if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be possible to put those branches into own threads.
>
> 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the forum.
>
> All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern conversation software will have all of this.
>
> For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option to replace both the mailing lists and the forums? https://www.discourse.org/
>
> I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is that the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles").
> On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote:
>>> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>
>> The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions to behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have read this a thousand times. I don't see how this brings us forward.
>>
>> But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's be positive, and talk about ideas.
>> We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium which can have a very big effect.
>>
>> I would like to brainstorm what features of a desired communication medium would have a positive impact on the discussion culture, and also on the ability of us, to find something like a consensus.
>>
>> Please, everyone, feel invited in this branch of this thread to give some input. I have some ideas myself so I will start with that, but in the next message. :-)
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> On 25/05/2019 00:47, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>>> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations
>>> can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ...
>>>
>>> Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when possible.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've seen it happen in real time.
>>>
>>>> The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as
>>> personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?".
>>>
>>> This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that it was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list format that contribute to that atmosphere.
>>>
>>>> The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a
>>> bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened).
>>>
>>> Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we interface properly and decrease alienation?
>>>
>>> Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough to establish a minimum sense of decorum.
>>>
>>>> Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take
>>> a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be saying.
>>>
>>> Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be something like consensus - sounds great!
>>>
>>> I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love disagreement: it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get consensus. New users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all have robust discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of tags.
>>>
>>> However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served when there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also incompatible, opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: ignore at least N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along hoping that those positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply talking about proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that situation, you'll come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some people will be very annoyed if you try to do it your way.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <ajt1047 at gmail.com <mailto:ajt1047 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>> >
>>> > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>>> > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>>> > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>>> >
>>> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to
>>> understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations
>>> can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the
>>> other. This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ...
>>>
>>> Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>>> both within and without OSM. People attach themselves to communities
>>> both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>>> community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>>> the people in it. For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>>> in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>>> about them and think that they are somehow bad people. The initial "OSM
>>> needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" message in the
>>> other thread said a number of things that surely were not intended as
>>> personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a
>>> sense of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal
>>> attacks. I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how
>>> will it be interpreted? How will it make other people feel?".
>>>
>>> The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out
>>> of order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a
>>> bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain
>>> the clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an
>>> argument with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly
>>> childish way, you can rely on someone else to tell them that what they
>>> are saying is silly (as happened in this thread when Clifford Snow
>>> intervened).
>>>
>>> If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>>> X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>>> the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>>> response). Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>>> misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>>> "Sorry about the misunderstanding. What I was trying to say was ...".
>>> It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>>> paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>>>
>>> Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels
>>> like everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take
>>> a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to
>>> be saying. Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>>> you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>>> problem. Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>>> ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>>> allow another solution to emerge. Sometimes just sitting back and
>>> listening is the key.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org <mailto:Tagging at openstreetmap.org>
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> Tagging at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
More information about the Tagging
mailing list