[Talk-GB] Poll on Governance, what constitutes news, wiki front page

[TimSC]

Hi all,

This is in reference to the poll here: http://doodle.com/s2zg64vyaup72dcw

An idea: can we try to make this discussion more constructive? I have 
tried to do so here, probably with mixed success. I am beginning to be 
burdened with non-constructive messages and we really don't have time 
for them. (If people are thinking of turning that comment on me, as an 
ad hominem, again, please can we be more constructive!)

On 13/06/11 14:49, Dermot McNally wrote:
>
> It was put very succinctly by somebody earlier - paraphrasing, you
> know something is news if it's important enough that somebody other
> than the person who did it thinks it's news.
That is an interesting point. It does avoid the obvious question, do you 
personally think it is news? But this is more of an issue for the 
community than me.

Adam has chipped it to say the poll is worth putting on the front page 
as news [6]. In this specific case, this satisfies Dermot's point that 
news is news if other people think so.

It is an interesting idea to ensure independence of reporting to have a 
link separate from the author, but in a "do-ocracy" of OSM, we perhaps 
might want some flexibility in this. (And we will always have a risk of 
sock puppets.) The main input on to that page is from the community, not 
me. Your definition of news is actually rather unworkable too. I am sure 
someone is crazy enough to agree that anything is news, so how do you 
prevent spam based on your definition. I have attempted a working 
definition below.

On 13/06/11 15:07, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> Do we all get
> to put our subjective favourites at the top of the supposedly objective
> list of News?
Many intellectuals have pointed out that objective new sources don't 
exist - there is always a necessary slant or bias to any reporting [7]. 
Richard, as you are a journalist, I am surprised if you don't have 
personal experience of this? Recalling a certain US news network with 
the slogan "fair and balanced" and that ideal comes from a network that 
is very partisan. If you are unhappy with what I have done, I suggest 
you write some guidelines on how news should be edited. (On the other 
hand, many don't want rigid rules in OSM.)

Until there are some guidelines, we might stop pretending the wiki news 
is some sacred cow. I think the news section is a bit dry myself. The 
fact that the number of relations passed an arbitrary number is hardly 
"news" but it was recently reported. I would define news (that might be 
put on the front page) as events that are topical, relevant to a broad 
international group of contributors, it has impact on OSM and novelty. A 
poll on the future of OSM meets these criteria easily. There are 
probably better definitions of newsworthiness that any of us have 
provided [8] anyway.

>
> Sure. I care too. I know people who've voted on that poll precisely to
> show that they do not support your current crusade. I've chosen not to
> vote for that same reason.
Ok, I can't make you engage with my attempt to reform OSM. If we were 
being constructive, specifically for this poll, can you tell me how I 
can improve it? or is there some assumption you disagree with?

>> If there was some documentation on guidelines on what
>> constitutes news, Richard might have a point.
> Briefly flicking through the previous news items, they comprise things
> like statistics (e.g. 400,000 registered users), software releases,
> changes to the OSM website, new hardware etc.
>
> Concrete changes, not discussion. I can't see any precedent for an
> unofficial poll being placed there.
Ok you have defined "news" based on what has historically appeared. This 
seems to be rather clunky to me because it keeps us stuck in the past: 
what we previous considered news is the only news we can ever have. 
However, for the sake of argument, lets accept your definition. And if 
we were to find that my post fits your definition of news, we can agree 
it is indeed news. Good so far.

I looked through the old news, contrary to Richard's claim, there are 
indeed links to discussions and a doodle poll. Specifically [1]:

1) "Usability improvements for osm.org? Tell us!"
2) "OSMF license change vote has started; unofficial community survey at 
http://doodle.com/feqszqirqqxi4r7w"
3) "[...] comments may be submitted until March 20"
4) "The OpenStreetMap community petitions Google to resolve the legal 
ambiguity of tracing from Google's aerial imagery." (Links to google 
feedback site)

So it is clear that links to discussions ARE news, under Richard's 
definition. I am surprised you didn't find the above links, and I can 
only suggest you are more careful in researching your evidence.

I am beginning to think you, Richard, are trying to censor and obstruct 
me, based on the following:

1. You have never edited the news template on the wiki before [2] but 
did so to delete my message.
2. You stated you don't "support my crusade" and refuse to participate, 
and apparently gloating that others are opposed to my view (see above)
3. The link to the poll is news under your definition, and my judgment 
too, but you deleted it.
4. I asked people not to make a big deal of my discussions with OSMF 
[3], which you immediately ignored without explanation [4].

Richard, can't we just live and let live? You're profile has the wise 
words to avoid "endless discussions" and go do stuff. I think it is 
possible since we recently dropped a discussion that was going nowhere, 
at your suggestion [5]. I respected your request - live and let live. I 
am not asking you to do much - I am just asking for you to lay off, please.

So now I hope we can agree that other people think the poll is news, and 
that it is consistent with past news items, are there any other 
_constructive_ comments regarding putting the poll on the wiki front page?

Regards,

TimSC


[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/News_Archive
[2] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Template:News&limit=500&action=history 

[3] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006134.html
[4] 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006135.html
[5] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011752.html
[6] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2011-June/058729.html
[7] 
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Objectivity_%28journalism%29#Criticisms 

[8] http://journalism.about.com/od/reporting/a/newsworthy.htm