[Talk-GB] Peer verification (was: Liam123 again)

[Peter Miller]

On 8 Aug 2009, at 11:11, Simon Ward wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 07, 2009 at 01:11:02PM +0100, Nick Barnes wrote:
>> To my mind, nobody ought to be able to edit live map data unless:
>>
>> 1 - They have uploaded n tracks,
>> 2 - They have had m edits approved by a moderator
>> 3 - They are vouched for by somebody who has made many many edits
>>
>> (insert 'and' or 'or' or 'and/or' as appropriate)
>
> It has already been said, but I think raising the barrier to
> contribution is the wrong way to go.

+1

Wikipiedia does have a restriction for new users in regard to  
uploading images. Only after a number of unchallenged edits (or a  
period of time - I am not sure ) is a user allowed to upload images.  
Given that image uploads are potentially particularly problematic and  
given that Wikipedia, ie primarily about the written word  then this  
limitation seems reasonable.

>
> Instead, I’d like to see a way of saying someone has verified the data
> without changing it.  This has been talked about by others before,  
> and I
> think every State of the Map conference has had presentations on the
> subject.

+1

I suggest that this should be done at the level of a change-set, not  
at the feature level. There would a change-set patrol page/rss feed  
with an indication of which pages have been patrolled and by whom.  
Change-sets can either be approved or challenged. A challenge might be  
on the basis that it was an honest edit by an inexperienced  
contributors or blatant spam etc. There would then need to be a  
process to review challenged changesets further and resolve any issues.

Here are details of Wikipiedia's Patrol pages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Patrols

I like this group, the 'Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron' complete  
with emergence vehicles and flashing lights! Gives a clear message of  
support for new users that is very encouraging.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_Rescue_Squadron

Might it also be appropriate to only allow people to review change- 
sets only when they have themselves made a certain number of edits  
that have not been challenged? Not beyond trickery, but the level of  
trickery needed would be much higher than currently and would be  
sufficient for most purposes.

I really really think we need a new email-list for vandalism related  
issues - There is a 'data working group' chaired by Mikel but Mikel is  
probably not even on this list and I can find no information on the  
foundation website about their activities. I realise that some members  
of the data working group are on this list but that is by chance. I am  
keen that working groups get better integrated into the wider  
community and discussion and feel that the main talk list is just to  
busy for such a debate.


Regards,



Peter