[OSM-talk] Being more like Wikipedia (was: OpenStreetMap Future Look)

[Clifford Snow]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:53 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> For example, Wikipedia being as well known as it is has lead them to
> create "relevance criteria" - you can't create an article on a living
> person or a geographic feature, for example, unless that person or feature
> fulfills certain criteria. Wikipedians felt that this was necessary because
> they were swamped with data they considered irrelevant and un-encyclopedic.
> Many people left Wikipedia because of that (and indeed many of them are to
> be found in the ranks of OSM nowadays). I've heard other OSMers make fun of
> the tons of "WP:xxx" rules that Wikipedia has but I am sure they are not
> there because Wikipedians terribly enjoy rule-making - they probably had to
> be created in response to problems.


Frederik - I think we already have similar rule making issues. Just look at
recent discussions on imports. Or how many left OSM because of the license
change. Rules and policy changes have little to do with full time staffs.
As you said, rules are there because there were needed. OSM changed the
licensing because of a need.

Can't OSM be more like Wikipedia and be the first choice to visit yet still
be a fun place for mappers? I'd like to think so. We have some great tools
for mappers. Potlatch is even being used by the USGS and bing looked into
by the US National Park Service. And JOSM is great. Let's try to duplicate
why users love Wikipedia, even though most are not contributors instead of
just saying their model won't work for OSM.

-- 
Clifford

OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20130109/6cc1784d/attachment.html>