[OSM-talk] Metrics

[stevea]

On Oct 16, 2021, at 3:41 PM, Justin Tracey <j3tracey at gmail.com> wrote:
> FWIW though, I've personally found that politely reaching out to score-seeker contributors, even if they don't reply, is usually (though not always) enough to get them to at least greatly reduce the problematic behavior in question.

Excellent, Justin; me, too.  I'd even say that MOST of this time, a "reduction" is exactly the (expected) result.  But when it is not and stronger measures are required, well, it's time to apply stronger measures.  It is as simple as that.

Bad behavior in OSM must be addressed, and I know that our DWG do "yeoman work" that I and virtually everybody appreciate.  But as DWG likely can't do everything (maybe someday they can?) other conscientious users, especially those with the skills to properly wield powerful tools like changeset reverting, remains necessary.  Please, be a respected member of the OSM community if / as you use these tools and use them conscientiously in the rare cases when you might find them a requirement.

Yes, it can be a fine line to determine if somebody (whether through sheer ignorance — understandable and somewhat excusable with the correct attitude of apology and "how can I improve?" — or whether deliberate, determined ill will) is damaging our data inadvertently or with malicious intent.  The usual "escalation" steps, starting with contact (and their reply can speak volumes as to what they really mean to do, although there truly are covert actors and real-life liars), moving up to DWG reporting, are correct.  "Score seeking" behavior, seemingly only recently (and openly) identified as problematic, might be considered "more mild" forms of damage to our data, but it, too, should be "nipped in the bud" where it is identified.

Let's not forget the simple tenet that "abuse is abuse," also stated "damage is damage" or even "vandalism is vandalism."  I know that good, earnest communication can often "fix" an errant (and apologetic) volunteer's efforts gone awry, these are actually opportunities to level-up novice mappers to become BETTER mappers.  But:  fifth chances, ninth chances, seventeenth chances...no.  We must be ready and willing to excise such cancer.

SteveA