User talk:Stoecker

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

On dealing with disputes

The wiki documents what's known as consensus for a feature. Ideally it is only changed after a consensus is established by voting, but the past has shown that this can be impractical - a lot of proposals never got the attention for the concept of proposals to truely 'work' and a lot of 'de facto' standards were established by deriving them from the data, without a vote, possibly contradicting existing proposals in the wiki.

This also allows documentation to enter the wiki that is incomplete or misleading (even plain wrong), possibly for years, if noone speaks up or if noone reads up on it to check (and vow mistakes found). Evolution is a slow process, so we cannot claim a certain state of a page to be complete or perfect. This is why noone should 'lock' or 'believe in' a page's state blindly. It leads to bigotry if reasonable change and questioning is disallowed. Locking in on a specific state without reasoning is what you're currently trying to do, you are conservative about it. People believed earth to be flat for thousands of years and burned the non-believers with false claims. For some cultures this is still claimed to be true, but not for the one we live in, but maybe we ought to rethink this assertion as well?

Whatever has been done in the past, the work and concerns of individuals always deserved attention and great respect (because noone likes to be ignored as 'childlike'). This is one reason why our project has initially been successful, because it is not autocratic and because people actually listen to each other and got the attention and respect they deserved, no matter how small or insignificant their issues seemed to be. Ignorance breaks this tradition. It has always been one person to start a dispute, sometimes this is you, sometimes another one. That's life. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

.. and that observation of yours about me being the only one disputing, is not a good one either. For one part, you've stated that my arguments are not new, implying that you've dealt with lots of other people dissenting that page's content before. For another part, even in the recent past, consulting this wiki alone (i.e. not additionally crawling the forum), you can find other persons with the same concern (e.g. User:Waeltken) and other users being uncertain (e.g. User:Gppes) by simply consulting DE_talk:Relation:multipolygon. So once again, you should not make this a personal issue between you and me, but rather consider the arguments of the group dissenting instead of shutting up individuals one by one over time. ––Cmuelle8 (talk) 00:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
You are modifying a page that is the main documentation of the current structure. And you are thus trying to impose on user searching documentation, that this feature is disputed. That's clearly not the case. You can write on mailinglists, write proposals, and whatever and when you can convince others that this is disputable, then set the flag. But what you do now is to suggest something which is clearly not the case. --Stoecker (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, I do not find nor need to convince others that this is an disputed feature, as I have found this dispute by having read this wiki and other sources. I then checked, if what I've read is justified and it is. It's a clear case that there is a dispute on. Not because I say so, but because I belong to a group saying so. You, on the other hand, speak as if this is a personal thing of mine, ridiculing the objective to discuss it reasonably. This observation is false and it's very easy to see that this is false. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, I am not shutting you up by simply reverting your edits, but by reasoning about the arguments you gave on the subject. Also, I've not removed touching inner rings from the documentation but inserted a valid note that there is some fuzz about it and you will have to accept that, unless you're an autocrat. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)