Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

The thread was mainly about bad science and how it effects the
perception of OSM in the public, including that it doesn't help in
addressing real issues.

Normally I would expect the moderators to suggest starting a new thread
if you want to discuss the issues around diversity and how to address
them instead of hijacking a thread with a different topic, but they seem
to be strangely absent

Simon

On 27.07.2017 14:41, Mikel Maron wrote:
> Takeaways
> * Everyone understands gender diversity is a problem
> * Some of us think it's very important to address, others think other
> issues are more important at this moment
> * The dudes arguing here among themselves about what's more important
> and dissecting arguments are not doing much to address the issue. 
> * The volume of discussion and overly sensitive responses to details,
> beating drums about our pet peeves, only shows that the key issue of
> gender diversity is not something some of us want to put energy into.
> * The discussion here doesn't matter. If we want to work on gender
> diversity, let's go away from here and support the women and men who
> have started good work on strategies at last year's SotM.
>  
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 7:54 AM, Frederik Ramm
>  wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > While I was dismissive of her arguments four years ago, now I see that
> > all of her points were valid, and are still valid.
>
> I think that it is possible for an insider of OpenStreetMap to look at
> Monica's work and see some valid points in there. But try to switch off
> your background knowledge and look at her work. What sticks with you is
> something like (quoting from a 3rd party web site that introduces the
> talk):
>
> "She looks specifically at the case of how "childcare" was not approved
> as map category within OpenStreetMap."
>
> This comes from her work massively exaggerating the issue for effect,
> and being extremely sloppy with OSM background research.
>
> Reviewing her talk, the OSM part begins with her showing group photos of
> past SotM conferences claiming "these are all men". Which clearly isn't
> true (you just have to zoom in on the picture). Maybe I'm putting the
> bar to high by measuring this with the "science" yardstick, but it feels
> wrong to me. Do you want future scientific papers to quote "according to
> , no women have attended large OSM gatherings before 2013"?
> Because that's what she says.
>
> She then goes on to equate the number of different values in the
> "amenity" key space with the importance of something (arguing that
> because you have different amenity values for bars and pubs it is clear
> that this is an important distinction); this is not tenable as just
> slightly more research would have shown, there is no correlation between
> the importance of something and the number of different key values in
> the amenity space.
>
> She then claims that "amenity=swingerclub" was the (1) most recently (2)
> accepted (3) voted on (4) approved amenity - not a single one of the
> numbered points is correct as far as I can see from the Wiki history
> (but I invite readers to double check, I might have missed some page
> renamings?).
>
> Going forward, she gives listeners the impression that a successful tag
> proposal was a requirement for being able to tag features, which is
> plain wrong. At the very least, a non-misleading, non-sensationalist
> presentation would have to mention that
>
> (a) anyone can tag anything they find important,
> (b) this *may* be influenced by editor presets (which didn't feature
> swingerclubs at the time and don't now)
> (c) what appears on the *map* is a different issue again, and
> swingerclubs weren't on the map then and aren't now.
>
> (As a tiny nod towards the actual subject of this thread, point "b" was
> addressed in Andrew Hall'S "Wikimedia Research Showcase" presentation.)
>
> She then goes on to discuss the amenity=childcare proposal, which had
> been voted down in 2011. As you can see from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare=789581
> the proposal itself had been framed sloppily; it claimed to be
> applicable to all age groups ("Example: 0-6") but didn't explain in how
> far it was meant to replace the existing amenity=kindergarten or just be
> for after-school/after-kindergarten care. A total of 9 people voted
> against the proposal; most because of this technicality, and two because
> they would have preferred amenity=social_facility.
>
> Did those 9 people vote because they "were ignorant" or "didn't care"?
> Maybe, but in my eyes the fault lies just as much with the proposal
> itself; the confusion with "kindergarten" and the question of whether
> "social_facility" would not be better didn't come from nowhere and they
> should have been addressed, the proposal refined, and brought to vote in
> a better shape.
>
> Do voters have a 

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Gregory]

Good to focus on the takeaways Mikel, thanks.

Topics of research has come up too, and we could also be welcoming/helping
academics more. I had already proposed a session for SotM, if anyone wants
to join me.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/State_of_the_Map_2017/Breakout_sessions#Academic_Research_.2F_Gregory_Marler.28LivingWithDragons.29

At SotM 2016 hackday, some work was done to see where our attendance
diversity (gender & home location) was. I should be able to share data
again if someone wants to compare. Warning: it might show nothing changed,
other than us talking about diversity.

>From the western world,
Gregory.

On 27 Jul 2017 1:44 pm, "Mikel Maron"  wrote:

> Takeaways
> * Everyone understands gender diversity is a problem
> * Some of us think it's very important to address, others think other
> issues are more important at this moment
> * The dudes arguing here among themselves about what's more important and
> dissecting arguments are not doing much to address the issue.
> * The volume of discussion and overly sensitive responses to details,
> beating drums about our pet peeves, only shows that the key issue of gender
> diversity is not something some of us want to put energy into.
> * The discussion here doesn't matter. If we want to work on gender
> diversity, let's go away from here and support the women and men who have
> started good work on strategies at last year's SotM.
>
> * Mikel Maron * +14152835207 <(415)%20283-5207> @mikel s:mikelmaron
>
>
> On Thursday, July 27, 2017 7:54 AM, Frederik Ramm 
> wrote:
>
>
> Hi,
>
> On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> > While I was dismissive of her arguments four years ago, now I see that
> > all of her points were valid, and are still valid.
>
> I think that it is possible for an insider of OpenStreetMap to look at
> Monica's work and see some valid points in there. But try to switch off
> your background knowledge and look at her work. What sticks with you is
> something like (quoting from a 3rd party web site that introduces the
> talk):
>
> "She looks specifically at the case of how "childcare" was not approved
> as map category within OpenStreetMap."
>
> This comes from her work massively exaggerating the issue for effect,
> and being extremely sloppy with OSM background research.
>
> Reviewing her talk, the OSM part begins with her showing group photos of
> past SotM conferences claiming "these are all men". Which clearly isn't
> true (you just have to zoom in on the picture). Maybe I'm putting the
> bar to high by measuring this with the "science" yardstick, but it feels
> wrong to me. Do you want future scientific papers to quote "according to
> , no women have attended large OSM gatherings before 2013"?
> Because that's what she says.
>
> She then goes on to equate the number of different values in the
> "amenity" key space with the importance of something (arguing that
> because you have different amenity values for bars and pubs it is clear
> that this is an important distinction); this is not tenable as just
> slightly more research would have shown, there is no correlation between
> the importance of something and the number of different key values in
> the amenity space.
>
> She then claims that "amenity=swingerclub" was the (1) most recently (2)
> accepted (3) voted on (4) approved amenity - not a single one of the
> numbered points is correct as far as I can see from the Wiki history
> (but I invite readers to double check, I might have missed some page
> renamings?).
>
> Going forward, she gives listeners the impression that a successful tag
> proposal was a requirement for being able to tag features, which is
> plain wrong. At the very least, a non-misleading, non-sensationalist
> presentation would have to mention that
>
> (a) anyone can tag anything they find important,
> (b) this *may* be influenced by editor presets (which didn't feature
> swingerclubs at the time and don't now)
> (c) what appears on the *map* is a different issue again, and
> swingerclubs weren't on the map then and aren't now.
>
> (As a tiny nod towards the actual subject of this thread, point "b" was
> addressed in Andrew Hall'S "Wikimedia Research Showcase" presentation.)
>
> She then goes on to discuss the amenity=childcare proposal, which had
> been voted down in 2011. As you can see from
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_
> features/childcare=789581
> the proposal itself had been framed sloppily; it claimed to be
> applicable to all age groups ("Example: 0-6") but didn't explain in how
> far it was meant to replace the existing amenity=kindergarten or just be
> for after-school/after-kindergarten care. A total of 9 people voted
> against the proposal; most because of this technicality, and two because
> they would have preferred amenity=social_facility.
>
> Did those 9 people vote because they "were ignorant" or "didn't care"?
> Maybe, but in my eyes the fault lies just as 

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Philip Barnes]

On 27 July 2017 07:37:43 BST, Ilya Zverev  wrote:
>On SotM 2016 8 of 45 talks (18%) were given by women. Srravya C in her 
>talk at that SotM shows that only 7% posts in talk@ were posted by 
>women, and just around 2% — in the tagging@ mailing list. She gives a 
>few good ideas about increasing the participation of women, by the way:
>
>http://2016.stateofthemap.org/2016/is-she-a-part-of-your-community/

That was an interesting talk, I did have a chat with her afterwards and did 
learn some interesting stuff. 

I did learn a lot, but did see it as more cultural than sexism in OSM. In some 
parts of the world there is, for example a lack of female toilets and she did 
mention that she will avoid toilets not explicitly mapped as female. This level 
of mapping had never occurred to me as a European as the norm is male and 
female toilets are together so had never seen the need to add that level of 
detail. As part of the talk she did use Germany as an example of how few female 
toilets are mapped, but as with the UK it is not something that would be mapped 
explicitly unless they were separated for some reason. 

I also learned that in India men and women are separated when voting, that is 
one cultural difference that would never have occurred to me. 

She did also mention that many of the names used it was impossible to determine 
gender. In informal setting such as osm there is a tendency to use nicknames 
and the more general shortening of names to gender neutral shortforms. 

Phil (trigpoint) 
>
>As a member of the Russian community, I can confirm we have ZERO active
>
>female members.
>
>Ilya
>
>27.07.2017 03:14, Simon Poole пишет:
>> 
>> 
>> On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
>>> 
>>> but these people are a minority in OSM,
>> Numbers please.
>> 
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>> 
>
>
>___
>Talk-GB mailing list
>Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> While I was dismissive of her arguments four years ago, now I see that 
> all of her points were valid, and are still valid. 

I think that it is possible for an insider of OpenStreetMap to look at
Monica's work and see some valid points in there. But try to switch off
your background knowledge and look at her work. What sticks with you is
something like (quoting from a 3rd party web site that introduces the talk):

"She looks specifically at the case of how "childcare" was not approved
as map category within OpenStreetMap."

This comes from her work massively exaggerating the issue for effect,
and being extremely sloppy with OSM background research.

Reviewing her talk, the OSM part begins with her showing group photos of
past SotM conferences claiming "these are all men". Which clearly isn't
true (you just have to zoom in on the picture). Maybe I'm putting the
bar to high by measuring this with the "science" yardstick, but it feels
wrong to me. Do you want future scientific papers to quote "according to
, no women have attended large OSM gatherings before 2013"?
Because that's what she says.

She then goes on to equate the number of different values in the
"amenity" key space with the importance of something (arguing that
because you have different amenity values for bars and pubs it is clear
that this is an important distinction); this is not tenable as just
slightly more research would have shown, there is no correlation between
the importance of something and the number of different key values in
the amenity space.

She then claims that "amenity=swingerclub" was the (1) most recently (2)
accepted (3) voted on (4) approved amenity - not a single one of the
numbered points is correct as far as I can see from the Wiki history
(but I invite readers to double check, I might have missed some page
renamings?).

Going forward, she gives listeners the impression that a successful tag
proposal was a requirement for being able to tag features, which is
plain wrong. At the very least, a non-misleading, non-sensationalist
presentation would have to mention that

(a) anyone can tag anything they find important,
(b) this *may* be influenced by editor presets (which didn't feature
swingerclubs at the time and don't now)
(c) what appears on the *map* is a different issue again, and
swingerclubs weren't on the map then and aren't now.

(As a tiny nod towards the actual subject of this thread, point "b" was
addressed in Andrew Hall'S "Wikimedia Research Showcase" presentation.)

She then goes on to discuss the amenity=childcare proposal, which had
been voted down in 2011. As you can see from
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/index.php?title=Proposed_features/childcare=789581
the proposal itself had been framed sloppily; it claimed to be
applicable to all age groups ("Example: 0-6") but didn't explain in how
far it was meant to replace the existing amenity=kindergarten or just be
for after-school/after-kindergarten care. A total of 9 people voted
against the proposal; most because of this technicality, and two because
they would have preferred amenity=social_facility.

Did those 9 people vote because they "were ignorant" or "didn't care"?
Maybe, but in my eyes the fault lies just as much with the proposal
itself; the confusion with "kindergarten" and the question of whether
"social_facility" would not be better didn't come from nowhere and they
should have been addressed, the proposal refined, and brought to vote in
a better shape.

Do voters have a duty to pass a badly done proposal when it is for a
good thing? Or are they right to shoot down a badly written proposal?
The "post mortem" on the page says "Voters have either not grasped this,
or have considered the fact of overlap sufficient to reject the proposal
without taking the time to propose a proper alternative." - but is it
the voter's responsibility to propose a proper alternative?

Monica Stephens makes the proposal sound less confusing in her talk -
she explicitly claims the proposal was for childcare for kids that are
"not of kindergarten age", when the proposal explicitly lists "0-6" as a
valid age example. So her listeners will not be able to understand the
confusion.

She then says "OpenStreetMap is a democratic society where people vote
on which amenities will appear on the base map" which is, of course,
wrong in several ways (see my a/b/c list above).

In criticising the "against" voters, she picks out a few that have
spelling mistakes and adds a prominent "[sic]" after each "refered" or
"usefull" - something that may be scientifically correct but speaks of a
desire to belittle these people for whom English is not their first
language. She doesn't quote any of the "against" votes that say that the
overlap needs to be explained, she only quotes those who believe the new
thing is identical to kindergarten. And the correct tally of 9 "no" and
5 "yes" votes becomes, in her talk, "voting ended and was 15 to 4". 

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

Am 27.07.2017 um 12:02 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
> I do not have numbers for how many people in OSM are interested in which 
> facilities. If I had, that would be a great research subject, or at least a 
> topic for an interesting SotM presentation.
>
> This sub-thread, of course, is an extra illustration to the issues in our 
> community. Only numbers matter, samples are good only if they represent the 
> bias in our community, no issues here, move along.
Well I would simply rather work on addressing real issues than spending
time on invented ones. That kind of implies that you need facts, not
fairy tales.

Low gender diversity among OSM contributors is reasonably well
established, if it actually biases what is and how it is mapped, is not
(that for example would be a good research topic).

And yes it is undoubtedly true that having a childcare preset in JOSM
(as the only editor with larger use without one) would be nice, but that
is the decision of a single developer not a bias of the whole community
(naturally most JOSM users are capable of typing the tag in without a
preset in any case). The delineation issues are naturally not resolved
by having a preset, that is however a problem of the subject matter, not
a question of lack of interest.

Simon
 
>
> Ilya
>
>> 27 июля 2017 г., в 10:57, Simon Poole  написал(а):
>>
>> You claimed that a minority of OSM contributors were interested in
>> childcare facilities and, implied that a majority is interested in
>> brothels.
>>
>> Again: numbers please.
>>
>> PS: you do illustrate an interesting point wrt the research we are
>> discussing here, one would expect an unbiased sample of OSM contributors
>> of size 15 to contain zero non-male and zero HOT members obviously the
>> composition of the interviewees was rather different.
>>
>>
>> Am 27.07.2017 um 08:37 schrieb Ilya Zverev:
>>> On SotM 2016 8 of 45 talks (18%) were given by women. Srravya C in her
>>> talk at that SotM shows that only 7% posts in talk@ were posted by
>>> women, and just around 2% — in the tagging@ mailing list. She gives a
>>> few good ideas about increasing the participation of women, by the way:
>>>
>>> http://2016.stateofthemap.org/2016/is-she-a-part-of-your-community/
>>>
>>> As a member of the Russian community, I can confirm we have ZERO
>>> active female members.
>>>
>>> Ilya
>>>
>>> 27.07.2017 03:14, Simon Poole пишет:

 On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> 
> but these people are a minority in OSM,
 Numbers please.

 ___
 Talk-GB mailing list
 Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-GB mailing list
>>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

The Wikipedia article on the topic:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_sampling

It would just seem to be far too easy for advocacy groups to hijack even
a well intentioned selection, which is what I suspect we are seeing
here. Instead of getting a diversity of viewpoints we are simply getting
one, that will then in turn be referenced by the same groups as a result
of "research".

Simon


On 27.07.2017 10:06, Dan S wrote:
> 2017-07-27 8:57 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole :
>> PS: you do illustrate an interesting point wrt the research we are
>> discussing here, one would expect an unbiased sample of OSM contributors
>> of size 15 to contain zero non-male and zero HOT members obviously the
>> composition of the interviewees was rather different.
> A uniform random sample is not really relevant in small-numbers
> sociological research. This is "snowball sampling" which is a very
> problematic form of sampling, but one thing it definitely does not
> claim is to be a balanced random sample. A social researcher using
> snowball sampling to find a small number of interviewees knows full
> well they aren't gathering a statistically random sample, and one
> hopes that this researcher tried to find a diversity of viewpoints for
> his interviews (I don't know). He could, for example, have
> deliberately designed his sample to have almost-equal numbers of men
> and women.
>
> Best
> Dan


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Ilya Zverev]

On SotM 2016 8 of 45 talks (18%) were given by women. Srravya C in her 
talk at that SotM shows that only 7% posts in talk@ were posted by 
women, and just around 2% — in the tagging@ mailing list. She gives a 
few good ideas about increasing the participation of women, by the way:


http://2016.stateofthemap.org/2016/is-she-a-part-of-your-community/

As a member of the Russian community, I can confirm we have ZERO active 
female members.


Ilya

27.07.2017 03:14, Simon Poole пишет:



On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:


but these people are a minority in OSM,

Numbers please.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Simon Poole]

On 26.07.2017 23:58, Ilya Zverev wrote:
> 
> but these people are a minority in OSM,
Numbers please.

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Ilya Zverev]

I have just went and rewatched the recording of Monica's 11-minute talk. 
While I was dismissive of her arguments four years ago, now I see that 
all of her points were valid, and are still valid. We have done nothing 
wrt diversity in our project. HOT did something, some local communities 
did (e.g. GeoChicas), but OpenStreetMap in general is still white, male 
and disregarding of any external point of view.


The tagging issue Monica raised was more about the proposal process in 
general, and most of us (I hope) have known it to be highly flawed. But 
the case with the childcare was telling: not only voters did not know 
what childcare was, they did not care. Significantly more people in the 
world find childcare facilities and the distinction between childcares, 
kindergartens and whatever more important that swinger clubs and 
brothels, but these people are a minority in OSM, and since we have 
meritocracy slash democracy (none of that actually, but that's often 
heard), that means minorities are not effecting OSM.


Sadly, I have no idea how to fix this. Dave's reply shows we are still a 
long way from being a diverse community where all opinions are heard and 
not dismissed.


Ilya


26.07.2017 23:02, Frederik Ramm пишет:

Hi,

>
... 


* Sadly the talk included the usual drive-by accusations of sexism in
OSM. It said, and I am not making this up: "There has been some work by
Monica Stephens that has discussed how new tag proposals for feminized
or (inaudible) spaces are given less, quote, attention" (this is
referring to a very badly researched 2013 article that essentially
contrsated took low vote outcome on a childcare tagging proposal with
brothels and swinger cluby in OSM to brand OSM sexist), and then went on
"also, one of our interviewees mentioned that she had, quote, heard of
women not being listened to or respected". -- What he's doing here is
quoting an anonymous source that is quoting an anonymous source that
says something about OSM, and that is good enough to make a sexism claim.

The whole talk did, it seems to me, slightly overrate the importance of
tagging discussions (they claimed to have interviewed 15 people but it
is unclear how they selected those 15), and therefore the discussion
that ensued was mostly around the question "how can we make sure that
everyone has a say in tagging discussions".

There seemed to be an underlying assumption that binding votes on
tagging, or at least a well-defined process to standardize and maintain
the global tagging ontology, was necessary (and not least, all those
autocratic editor writes need to submit to the community vote and not
invoke privilege to create presets that others must then follow).

I wouldn't say this has given me any new insights or ideas for the
future, but it is an interesting study in how (relative) outsiders
approach OSM.

I think we as a project really need to publish a more through, and more
visible, takedown on that 2013 Monica Stephens article though. At the
time I thought "oh well, bad research comes and goes, no need to start a
fight every time a researcher writes something wrong about OSM", but
that one seems to be found, believed in, and quoted by other researchers
just too much.

Bye
Frederik




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] [Osmf-talk] Live OSM discussion in ~45 minutes (7.30pm UK time)

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 07/26/2017 07:45 PM, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> I've just learned that this week's Wikimedia Research Showcase,
> streamed online TONIGHT at 7.30pm UK time, will focus on structured
> data in OpenStreetMap. Details below.

Thank you for the link, apparently it can still be watched after:

> YouTube stream: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC1jgK8C8aQ

I think the research bit was generally ok, albeit it didn't really
follow Muki Hakalay's "code of engagement" for scientists with OSM (
https://povesham.wordpress.com/2011/07/16/observing-from-afar-or-joining-the-action-osm-and-giscience-research/).

I took issue with a few items.

* The talk seemed to assume that the listener knows what "Dairy Queen"
or "Panera Bread" are ;)

* The talk seemed to try very hard to say OSM had "western standards" or
"UK cultural assumptions" but I felt that was very un-convincing on the
whole; it even showed two very differently built roads of the same
tagging in the US and Africa which to me seemed to prove the point that
things work ok - we don't demand that a road in Africa must be built to
the same standards as one in America to be a "primary" or whatever.

* The talk clearly had a HOT bias; towards the end there was even a
slide that tried to discuss "whose new ideas can influence the
standard", and it listed these four bullet points: "HOT", "Men",
"Hostile contributors", and "Code creators" (who, as discussed earlier,
had the power to limit the freedom of others).

* Sadly the talk included the usual drive-by accusations of sexism in
OSM. It said, and I am not making this up: "There has been some work by
Monica Stephens that has discussed how new tag proposals for feminized
or (inaudible) spaces are given less, quote, attention" (this is
referring to a very badly researched 2013 article that essentially
contrsated took low vote outcome on a childcare tagging proposal with
brothels and swinger cluby in OSM to brand OSM sexist), and then went on
"also, one of our interviewees mentioned that she had, quote, heard of
women not being listened to or respected". -- What he's doing here is
quoting an anonymous source that is quoting an anonymous source that
says something about OSM, and that is good enough to make a sexism claim.

The whole talk did, it seems to me, slightly overrate the importance of
tagging discussions (they claimed to have interviewed 15 people but it
is unclear how they selected those 15), and therefore the discussion
that ensued was mostly around the question "how can we make sure that
everyone has a say in tagging discussions".

There seemed to be an underlying assumption that binding votes on
tagging, or at least a well-defined process to standardize and maintain
the global tagging ontology, was necessary (and not least, all those
autocratic editor writes need to submit to the community vote and not
invoke privilege to create presets that others must then follow).

I wouldn't say this has given me any new insights or ideas for the
future, but it is an interesting study in how (relative) outsiders
approach OSM.

I think we as a project really need to publish a more through, and more
visible, takedown on that 2013 Monica Stephens article though. At the
time I thought "oh well, bad research comes and goes, no need to start a
fight every time a researcher writes something wrong about OSM", but
that one seems to be found, believed in, and quoted by other researchers
just too much.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb