[OSM-talk] Code of conduct for automated (mass-) edits

[Lulu-Ann at gmx.de]

Hello List,

I agree to Frederiks ideas and I would even go further: I would like to have a 
proposal-like system with votings for bot-runs installed with 8 of 15 for a single
run and 16 of 32 for a regularly running bot.

Bye
Lulu-Ann


> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 01:08:50 +0200
> From: Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> Subject: [OSM-talk] Code of conduct for automated (mass-) edits
> To: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Message-ID: <48E00E82.7000007 at remote.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> Hi,
> 
>     as OpenStreetMap draws more and more sophisticated users, we're also 
> seeing more scripts or, as they would be called in Wikipedia, "bots", 
> modifying data.
> 
> I'm in a bit of a dilemma here. I have been using such scripts for a 
> while now (see my "Fixbot" page on the Wiki, or some past "undo" 
> actions). I have always felt that being able to use scripts gives me 
> considerably more power than the average user, and I have tried to 
> ensure that I use that power responsibly.
> 
> That kind self-restraint is, however, not the norm for everyone who is 
> capable of doing automated modifications. We are now seeing automated 
> edits on a large scale, often un-discussed and un-documented. When you 
> ask the authors they respond with something like "oh, I read on the Wiki 
> that something should be so-and-so, so I thought I'll just change it".
> 
> One example to which I took exception is that someone in Germany has 
> "corrected" a five-digit number of ways by inserting spaces in "ref" 
> tags (ref=A18 became ref=A 18) and/or changing "Strasse" in the name to 
> "Stra?e", which is the correct spelling (but nonetheless "Strasse" is 
> often found on signs).
> 
> Now the actual changes done are not too bad; they are actually, ex post, 
> welcomed by the majority of people on talk-de. Had the author of the 
> script discussed the issue on talk-de before, he'd probably have 
> received an almost unanimous go-ahead from the community.
> 
> Still, this issue makes me feel uneasy. We take pride in not having 
> fixed rules. If someone, somewhere, decides to tag a road as "Strasse" 
> not "Stra?e" because that's what's on the signs, however wrong 
> orthographically: Should someone else, armed with no local knowledge but 
> just a set of spelling rules, without prior discussion, run a script 
> that changes this? Is this not showing disrespect to other people's 
> contributions?
> 
> Another issue is, *if* something is changed, *how* this is done. Lacking 
> 0.6's versioning, if anyone analyzes yesterday's planet file to find 
> ways he'd like to fix and uploads changed versions of each, chances are 
> he'll overwrite all those that have been changed between the generation 
> of the planet file and his script run. Whoever wants to run an automated 
> update should know exactly what he's doing, and be in a position to 
> exactly revert his changes should it turn out they were faulty.
> 
> And still another thing is documentation; I somewhat expect that any 
> automated, large-scale change should be documented. When was it done, 
> what exactly was done, how many objects were affected, what were the 
> "source" and/or username settings for the job so that it can be 
> identified later.
> 
> 
> When I issued words of caution on the German list, some people came to 
> me grinning and said "well there you have it, that's what happens when 
> you have a project without rules, and anyone making automated changes 
> has the same right to do so as anyone else".
> 
> I don't think this is true; scripts or "bots" are a powerful means of 
> enforcing rules. If they proliferate in an uncontrolled fashion, we'll 
> soon have a number of mini dictators who have constructed their own set 
> of rules and will modify anything that dares to be different. The 
> philosopher Karl Popper has called this the "paradox of tolerance" - 
> even if you preach tolerance, your tolerance has to stop at intolerance. 
> So if we preach the freedom to tag whatever you want and how you want 
> it, that freedom has to stop if people start mass-changing existing data.
> 
> 
> I am in favour of setting up a code of conduct for automated edits. The 
> key elements would be:
> 
> 1. Make a plan of what you want to change, and discuss in relevant forum 
> (usu. mailing list). If there are many objections; drop the plan. If 
> there are few objections, maybe exempt certain areas or objects created 
> by certain people in order to respect their objections. Remember that 
> they can easily change things back again if you act against their will, 
> so don't even try to play the superiority card.
> 2. Make sure your tools and knowledge are good: You have to be able to 
> revert your changes if something goes wrong, and you need to keep any 
> collateral damage to an absolute minimum. If you cannot guarantee that, 
> ask someone for help who can.
> 3. Run the job. If it is something big or something you will probably do 
> more often, consider creating an extra account for it so it is easily 
> recognizable.
> 4. Provide documentation that tells people what exactly you have done.
> 5. Remember: With great power comes great responsibility.
> 
> I would also accompany this by the notion that if you see an automated 
> edit that you believe has problems, and it has not been discussed or 
> documented, it's ok to revert it.
> 
> Bye
> Frederik
> 
> -- 
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49?00'09" E008?23'33"
> 
> 
-- 
Psssst! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger