[OSM-talk] Commenting and thumbs up/down feature for changesets

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Wed Jul 13 14:44:03 BST 2011


On 07/13/2011 03:22 PM, Steve Bennett wrote:
>> Also, in case this hasn't become clear, I am not in favour of +1/-1 buttons
>> for *contributors*, but for individual *changesets*.
> Well, until you start compiling them into a league table of
> least-liked contributors. Which, erm, you proposed. :)

A "witch-hunt", of which you chose to speak, would IMHO be something 
where I vote up or down a person.

I was thinking of voting up or down contributions, and yes, this could 
also lead to league tables that identify people with consistently 
problematic edits; but that would not be because of who they are, but 
because of what they do. Maybe I am the only one seeing a difference 
here but personally I have absolutely zero problem in saying something 
like "this person has consistently made edits that others in the project 
found sub-standard". This has nothing to do with hurling insults at 

(But frankly I would expect such a system to be much more fine grained; 
I would expect the "average" score of most changesets to be positive - 
just like we have many more up-votes than down-votes on help.osm.org; 
but if you are a contributor who, like most, does well most of the time, 
and then you start doing something new and suddenly you're getting bad 
feedback for that then you might be inclined to re-think. Such negative 
feedback is possible even today by sending them a message, but that's a 
much higher hurdle so you'll have many people who say "eek, that looks 
stupid" but they won't bother writing. A +1/-1 button would be a measure 
with more participation.)

>> I am not a friend of policies and guidelines
> Ah. I am. For all the complaints of "wikilawyering" at Wikipedia, at
> least it means the effort is focused on improving policies and
> guidelines, rather than simply hurling insults at each other. Or,
> almost worse, the interminable discussions on the tagging lists that
> briefly build consensus which is promptly forgotten because it wasn't
> recorded anywhere.
>> I think there should be policies and guidelines for a few "hard" things but
>> there will always be "soft" things where setting up rules is extremely
>> difficult.
> Policies for hard things, guidelines for soft things.

Why don't you start a committee to set up policies and guidelines, and I 
do +1/-1 buttons on changesets, and in a year we meet to compare results ;)


More information about the talk mailing list