[OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping

[Eros, Emily]

Hi all,

In the midst of the discussion about remote mapping, I couldn¹t help but
notice this comment from Sarah:

"In my experience, the issue is not that OSM is not welcoming for woman
but simply that it is not
interesting enough for them."

I was surprised to see this and I have to say that I disagree. I find it
hard to believe that half the population isn¹t interested in mapping just
because they are female; the active engagement of so many women in the OSM
community certainly suggests otherwise.

Maybe I am misreading the intent of that comment? If so, please disregard.
If not, and I¹m reading this correctly, then may I suggest looking deeper
to see if there are other factors (beyond pure lack of interest)
preventing the women you know from taking an interest in OSM? Maybe
there¹s a different engagement strategy you could consider?

#InterestedEnoughToMap,
Emily




>From: Sarah Hoffmann <lonvia at denofr.de>
>To: Kate Chapman <kate at maploser.com>
>Cc: Talk Openstreetmap <talk at openstreetmap.org>
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] Some thoughts against remote mapping
>Message-ID: <20150614083150.GA20250 at denofr.de>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>> Diversity to me has never just been gender. Though it has been shown
>>that
>> if you make a place welcoming to women it also makes it more inviting
>>for
>> other underrepresented groups. Intersectional feminism is about equality
>> for everyone.
>
>This argument still has a sour taste to me. In my experience, the issue
>is not that OSM is not welcoming for woman but simply that it is not
>interesting enough for them. The outcome is the same but the actions to
>take are vastly different. I do agree with you though, that finding
>a solution to attract more woman will also show a way to attract other
>underrepresented groups. After all, it is exactly the same argument as
>above: the interests of the map makers and the potential map users
>don't match.
>
>
>Sarah