Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
25 May 2019, 17:44 by f...@zz.de: > On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> >> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote >> a culture of dissent. >> > > I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication > make a "culture of dissent"? > Some forums, slack allow you to add +1 to a comment in acceptable nonspammy way without changing visibility of content [1] As result with opinion that is shared by 20 people and one opponent you may get: On forum with upvotes enabled: 1 opposing reply 20 "xyz liked this post" On mailing list: 1 opposing reply For many second is much more frustrating than the first one. > From a sociological point i would assume that people on the mailinglist > are by average 10 Years older than people on Slack or the Forum. Thats > just a matter of history of technology. > That is probably also an important factor, there are likely also other confounders. [1] allowing upvotes/downvotes to affect content visibility results in other group of unwanted effects___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 02:28:45AM +0200, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a > culture of dissent. I strongly disagree here. How can a technical form of communication make a "culture of dissent"? Can you elaborate why you think Mail as a form of communication is different in making a compromise possible than IRC, Slack or a Forum? From a sociological point i would assume that people on the mailinglist are by average 10 Years older than people on Slack or the Forum. Thats just a matter of history of technology. So in the end its not "Mailing lists" but age which make you believe you have a culture of dissent? Flo PS: I will not participate in a Forum. It turns the responsibilities for around. You suddenly have the obligation to POLL on threads. -- Florian Lohoff f...@zz.de UTF-8 Test: The ran after a , but the ran away signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
Oof, sorry, I managed to discuss software despite your last message. Please disregard. On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:06 PM Nick Bolten wrote: > I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a. > > I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly > flexible and open. In discourse's case, it's all the same > language/framework as openstreetmap.org (rails), which might be a plus. > The ability to easily modify the platform would provide the opportunity to > create systematic improvements and funnel activism in productive directions. > > Example 1: One potential action item during/after a discussion should be > to update the wiki. A slightly ambitious dev could integrate discourse with > a ticketing system without too much effort. Someone's trying to build one > here already: https://github.com/angusmcleod/discourse-tickets. > > Example 2: You can use tags. This would help with some of the noise > inherent in the mailing list and make it easier to discover relevant past > discussions. > > Best, > > Nick > > > > > On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:29 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> >> 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) >> promote a culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they >> tend towards not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want >> to litter the conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, >> as someone posing a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like >> this one), you never know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if >> everyone is like "ok sounds good". >> Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the >> mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most >> people are actually fine with, to a consent. >> >> 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, >> you simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice >> this and state your reasons. So, I think simply a "sounds good" button, >> aka "like" (facebook) or "clap" (medium.com) will make a big >> difference. (Did you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki >> recently? Use it!) This will make it much easier also for people who >> usually just lurk on the mailing list and don't feel they want to actively >> participate in the discussion to give the people who write some feedback. >> >> 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the >> overall communication culture to get more people on board. >> >> 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this >> thread somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from >> the openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for >> example https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like >> >> 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, >> no further registration required. >> >> 3. Moderation and Edits. >> >> 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are >> all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you >> shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. >> >> 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to >> see that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to >> keep the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will >> stay forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by >> those that see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just >> stay there, even if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the >> discussion. This is the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't >> underestimate emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html >> ). So, my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really. >> >> 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. >> Especially if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be >> possible to put those branches into own threads. >> >> 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the >> forum. >> >> All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern >> conversation software will have all of this. >> >> For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin >> (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option >> to replace both the mailing lists and the forums? >> https://www.discourse.org/ >> >> I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is >> that the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles"). >> On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote: >> >> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or >> if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can >> see that happen
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
I like the thesis (and it's so organized)! I give it a. I like the idea of using discourse - or at least something similarly flexible and open. In discourse's case, it's all the same language/framework as openstreetmap.org (rails), which might be a plus. The ability to easily modify the platform would provide the opportunity to create systematic improvements and funnel activism in productive directions. Example 1: One potential action item during/after a discussion should be to update the wiki. A slightly ambitious dev could integrate discourse with a ticketing system without too much effort. Someone's trying to build one here already: https://github.com/angusmcleod/discourse-tickets. Example 2: You can use tags. This would help with some of the noise inherent in the mailing list and make it easier to discover relevant past discussions. Best, Nick On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:29 PM Tobias Zwick wrote: > > 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) > promote a culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they > tend towards not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want > to litter the conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, > as someone posing a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like > this one), you never know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if > everyone is like "ok sounds good". > Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the > mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most > people are actually fine with, to a consent. > > 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, > you simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice > this and state your reasons. So, I think simply a "sounds good" button, > aka "like" (facebook) or "clap" (medium.com) will make a big > difference. (Did you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki > recently? Use it!) This will make it much easier also for people who > usually just lurk on the mailing list and don't feel they want to actively > participate in the discussion to give the people who write some feedback. > > 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the > overall communication culture to get more people on board. > > 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this thread > somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from the > openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for example > https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like > > 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, > no further registration required. > > 3. Moderation and Edits. > > 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are > all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you > shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. > > 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to > see that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to > keep the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will > stay forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by > those that see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just > stay there, even if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the > discussion. This is the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't > underestimate emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html ). > So, my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really. > > 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. > Especially if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be > possible to put those branches into own threads. > > 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the > forum. > > All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern > conversation software will have all of this. > > For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin > (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option > to replace both the mailing lists and the forums? > https://www.discourse.org/ > > I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is > that the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles"). > On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote: > >> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or > if disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can > see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? > > > > The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical > solutions to behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have > read this a thousand times. I don't see how this brings us
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
Sorry in hindsight I should have left out the last paragraph, please ignore it. I would rather not discuss concrete suggestions for software but collect ideas for certain modes of communications that may make constructive communication happen more. On 25/05/2019 02:28, Tobias Zwick wrote: > > 1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a > culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they tend towards > not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want to litter the > conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, as someone posing > a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like this one), you never > know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if everyone is like "ok > sounds good". > Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the > mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most > people are actually fine with, to a consent. > > 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, you > simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice this > and state your reasons. So, I think simply a "sounds good" button, aka > "like" (facebook) or "clap" (medium.com) will make a big difference. (Did > you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki recently? Use it!) > This will make it much easier also for people who usually just lurk on the > mailing list and don't feel they want to actively participate in the > discussion to give the people who write some feedback. > > 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the overall > communication culture to get more people on board. > > 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this thread > somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from the > openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for example > https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like > > 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, no > further registration required. > > 3. Moderation and Edits. > > 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are all > humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you > shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. > > 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to see > that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to keep > the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will stay > forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by those that > see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just stay there, even > if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the discussion. This is > the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't underestimate > emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html ). So, > my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really. > > 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. Especially > if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be possible to > put those branches into own threads. > > 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the forum. > > All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern > conversation software will have all of this. > > For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin > (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option to > replace both the mailing lists and the forums? https://www.discourse.org/ > > I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is that > the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles"). > On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote: >>> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if >>> disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see >>> that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? >> >> The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions >> to behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have read this a >> thousand times. I don't see how this brings us forward. >> >> But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's be >> positive, and talk about ideas. >> We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium which >> can have a very big effect. >> >> I would like to brainstorm what features of a desired communication medium >> would have a positive impact on the discussion culture, and also on the >> ability of us, to find something like a consensus. >> >> Please, everyone, feel invited in this branch of this thread to give some >> input. I have some ideas myself so I will
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:29, Tobias Zwick wrote: [Reasonable points, so far] > 3. Moderation and Edits. > > 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are > all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you > shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. > That one is problematic. Well-meant, but problematic. It solves some problems but introduces others. The first problem is thread-detachment if somebody is allowed to delete a post or edit it to oblivion (which is pretty much the same thing). You may end up with a lot of replies that make little or no sense without the thing they're replying to. You can't automatically delete all the replies because some of those responses may have made useful contributions that stand alone. The second problem is malicious editing. Posting something then, after many have responded, editing your post to make the responses look stupid. I've seen that happen in similar systems. A history function would prevent that, but would also reveal stuff that people deleted for valid reasons and is best left unseen A partial, not very effective solution, is to not permit editing or deleting after a response has been made. That fixes some of the problems above but introduces others. It probably makes the situation slightly worse, overall. YouTube comments had it at one point but they no longer do. All the problems can be solved with more effort from moderators. Do we have enough people with enough spare time? What you propose might be better than the mailing list. Or it might not. We won't know unless we try it. I'm not sure you'll overcome the inertia to replace the mailing list and might end up partitioning the community. Worthy of consideration but I'm not entirely sold on the current incarnation of the idea. -- Paul ___ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
1. Thesis: Mailing lists (and to a lesser degree, classical forums) promote a culture of dissent. This is because if people just agree, they tend towards not answering at all on these mediums because they do not want to litter the conversation when they don't have something own to say. So, as someone posing a topic that does not develop into a long thread (like this one), you never know if it was due to that nobody is interested, or if everyone is like "ok sounds good". Now, what we actually want to achieve when starting a discussion on the mailing list or forums to get so some kind of result with which all or most people are actually fine with, to a consent. 1.1 A Solution: In real life, if you agree but have nothing more to say, you simply show that by nodding or clapping. While, if you don't, you voice this and state your reasons. So, I think simply a "sounds good" button, aka "like" (facebook) or "clap" (medium.com) will make a big difference. (Did you know that a "thanks" button was introduced in our wiki recently? Use it!) This will make it much easier also for people who usually just lurk on the mailing list and don't feel they want to actively participate in the discussion to give the people who write some feedback. 2. Get more "normies" on board. I think it can only be good for the overall communication culture to get more people on board. 2.1 Linked from the main page. Was already mentioned before in this thread somewhere - the communication medium should be linked directly from the openstreetmap.org start page to get more people on board. See for example https://kotlinlang.org/community/ on how it could look like 2.2. OAuth. Users should simply be able to use their openstreetmap login, no further registration required. 3. Moderation and Edits. 3.1 Edit: Every now and then, people derail verbally, it happens. We are all humans. So, to be able to edit your post after you realized that you shouldn't have said something inflammatory, abusive or stupid, is important. 3.2 Report: And sometimes, a person will just not cool down and fail to see that he is being abusive, then this needs to be moderated in order to keep the discussion factual. An abusive comment on the mailing list will stay forever, while one on a well moderated medium will only be seen by those that see it before it is reported. Having an abusive comment just stay there, even if it is rebuked, broadcasts a nasty odor and poisons the discussion. This is the "toxicity" that pops up time and again here. Don't underestimate emotions. Just remember how this discussion here started ( https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/tagging/2019-May/045501.html ). So, my conclusion, *good* moderation is most important really. 3.3 Moderation: Sometimes discussions go off topic or branch off. Especially if using a threaded forum or a mailing list. Then, it should be possible to put those branches into own threads. 3.x All three are not possible on a mailing list, but at least in the forum. All those points I mentioned are nothing new or outrageous. Any modern conversation software will have all of this. For example F-Droid (Android OpenSource Software Repository) and Kotlin (modern programming language) both use Discourse. Could this be an option to replace both the mailing lists and the forums? https://www.discourse.org/ I am talking about replace here, because one part of the problem is, is that the community is so scattered ("filter bubbles"). On 25/05/2019 01:43, Tobias Zwick wrote: >> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if >> disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see >> that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? > > The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions to > behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have read this a > thousand times. I don't see how this brings us forward. > > But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's be > positive, and talk about ideas. > We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium which > can have a very big effect. > > I would like to brainstorm what features of a desired communication medium > would have a positive impact on the discussion culture, and also on the > ability of us, to find something like a consensus. > > Please, everyone, feel invited in this branch of this thread to give some > input. I have some ideas myself so I will start with that, but in the next > message. :-) > > Tobias > > On 25/05/2019 00:47, Nick Bolten wrote: >>> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to >>> understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations >> can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. >> This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... >> >> Yes, of course. It's important to
Re: [Tagging] Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)
> Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if > disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You can see > that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more? The discussion pretty quickly drifted from considering technical solutions to behaviors, toxicity, cultural differences etc. etc., I have read this a thousand times. I don't see how this brings us forward. But I was waiting for a cue like this. Thank you for that, Nick. Let's be positive, and talk about ideas. We can't change the people, but we can change the communication medium which can have a very big effect. I would like to brainstorm what features of a desired communication medium would have a positive impact on the discussion culture, and also on the ability of us, to find something like a consensus. Please, everyone, feel invited in this branch of this thread to give some input. I have some ideas myself so I will start with that, but in the next message. :-) Tobias On 25/05/2019 00:47, Nick Bolten wrote: >> What I'd suggest is that (much as I suggested before) everyone tries to >> understand how points of view can be misunderstood and how conversations > can go downhill, when each side believes that there is malice on the other. > This thread is actually a pretty good example of it ... > > Yes, of course. It's important to ask questions and assume the best, when > possible. > > Sometimes, the insults are as subtle as a sledgehammer. It's not > miscommunication, it's a free-for-all, and it turns away new users. I've seen > it happen in real time. > >> The initial "OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions" >> message in the other thread said a number of things that surely were not >> intended as > personal attacks but were directed at a place with which people felt a sense > of community, and therefore _were_ interpreted as direct personal attacks. > I'd suggest everyone asks themselves "If I write this, how will it be > interpreted? How will it make other people feel?". > > This point is well-taken. I should have contextualized my points so that it > was clear that I'm objecting to a particular atmosphere and want it to > improve. I do believe there are fundamental problems with the mailing list > format that contribute to that atmosphere. > >> The next thing that I'd suggest is when someone has said something out of >> order (or that seems at first glance to be out of order) to wait a > bit before replying. An initial retort will be be unlikely to contain the > clearest thought out response. If you've managed to get into an argument > with someone and the other person behaves in a particularly childish way, you > can rely on someone else to tell them that what they are saying is silly (as > happened in this thread when Clifford Snow intervened). > > Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will still > have a negative experience. This is still (in theory) a volunteer-driven > effort, so that really matters. They can (and do) just leave. You can see > that the main dev of the most popular editor has already given up on these > lists for very similar reasons. That's why this is relevant: that's a > surprisingly reasonable response, so how can we fix it? How can we interface > properly and decrease alienation? > > Finally, while it is surely helpful when certain behavior is called out as > unacceptable, and it's appreciated, it doesn't happen nearly often enough to > establish a minimum sense of decorum. > >> Finally, (and this is one for British politicians as well) if it feels like >> everyone's ganging up on you and no-one seems to agree, stop, take > a step back and try and draw a thread between what "everyone" seems to be > saying. > > Oh, I think "ganging up" is fine so long as it's civil. That would be > something like consensus - sounds great! > > I may not be making my point about disagreement clear. I love disagreement: > it's healthy, it's productive, there's no other way to get consensus. New > users should be met with it, when appropriate. We should all have robust > discussions about differing views to establish the meaning of tags. > > However, it's hard to see how "establish the meaning of tags" is served when > there are 3, 4, 5, 6, etc absolutist, often insulting, yet also incompatible, > opinions offered. That forces the visitor into this position: ignore at least > N - 1 of those people and either give up or plod along hoping that those > positions can be, in some way, taken back. I'm not simply talking about > proposals: if you ask, "how do I tag this?" and are in that situation, you'll > come away thinking that nobody knows the answer, but some people will be very > annoyed if you try to do it your way. > > Sometimes, it goes the other way - the good way. There's consensus, or if > disagreement, the different options are offered constructively. You