On 12/12/18 2:16 AM, Ralph Aytoun wrote:
I am also concerned about the quality of the mapping that is tying up
projects because it takes up so much validation time. [..]
This perception is (don't take it personally - I answer your message but
I'm not singling you out) a symptom of a widespread problem: quality
perceived as a separate activity, an extra cost tacked on the actual
productive work.
Considering the quality assurance process as a distinct set of
activities has the very unfortunate effect of creating an unnecessary
conflict with production.
So:
- Start with a clearly defined objective quality goal, just adequate for
the planned purpose of the data
- Teach contributors that not meeting this goal is worse than doing
nothing: negative value
- Monitor contributions in real time, to catch deviations before they
snowball... I love Bjoern's idea, though OSMCHA works for me
- Reiterate !
Quality is the essence of the whole activity, not a distinct step.
Yes, it spoils the fun for new contributors thrilled to start mapping
away and see their gamified metrics take off spectacularly in a rain of
digital achievement awards. But it also helps them make sense of what
they are doing instead of launching them on an open ended trip with a
hazy purpose - and what is better than to find meaning in a task ?
Normative leadership may feel incompatible with a flat collaborative
forum such as Openstreetmap, but it makes sense within a directed
project with a declared purpose, to which contributors voluntarily
participate. If they trust the project leadership enough to join as
contributors, they may expect the normative guidance and even be
disappointed not to feel it from the leadership.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
