[Talk-us] Spammy-sounding survey sent to my OSM inbox today.
steveaOSM at softworkers.com
Sun Jul 28 23:35:18 UTC 2013
>Birth year ______ [-] visible to public.
>[-] shared in full, for qualified research projects.
>[*] shared in aggregate form only, for qualified research projects.
>Languages Spoken [English-Fluent][German-Rudimentary]
>I am willing to be contact up to once ever 6 months for research surveys [X]
The Babel template does a good job of expressing what any OSM user
with a wiki User page wants to share w.r.t. languages
>Understanding who is mapping is a useful thing for a wide variety of
>purposes. OSM is a community of mappers: many will chose to share
>who they are and their motivations for participating. We're mapping
>verifiable objects and defined boundaries that exist in the world:
>this is not wikileaks.
I don't doubt this. I just don't volunteer anything I haven't
already -- which is a lot, but I prefer to remain under the threshold
of discomfort. I think many, many OSMers do, too. Opt me out,
please. As I recognize that OSM has a rather formal and explicit
public about it by posting to the talk-us pages (and everybody
shouldn't), but rather I'm having a policy discussion with the wider
USA OSM community, and want to stress that I am but one of many USA
OSM mappers who prefers the present state of semi-anonymity.
>An opt-out should mostly keep the data clean: removing the incentive
>to provide fake data (e.g. Birth year 1/1/1900, with apologies to
>anyone actually born on that day
>The cost of collecting demographics is low. The disruption to those
>seeking anonymity is slight.
OK, how do you account for the skew in data that happens as some opt
in and some opt out? Um, please don't answer that (but do ponder
it), as the question is essentially rhetorical.
Good discussion (and thank you to those who have responded to me
off-list, as well),
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-us