Talk:Organised Editing Guidelines

From OpenStreetMap Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Edits organised by HOT

I had added a description of the current practice, as to make the OSM description match the HOT practice, since I did not manage to move HOT to make their practice match the OSM description. May I assume @Woodpeck has removed it because HOT has pledged to comply with OSM Guidelines? Mariotomo (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it because your edit did not make sense. Just because I manage to go 120 km/h without getting at ticket for speeding on a road where only 100 km/h is allowed doesn't mean the law automatically gets changed to "Woodpeck has a special exemption and he may go 120 km/h on all roads". HOT editors participate in OSM under the exact same rules as everyone else. Where HOT editors disregard the guidelines and cause trouble by doing so, they should be called out just like everyone else would. --Woodpeck (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you managed to never be fined nor get a reprimand, then before others start thinking that the rule does not apply in general, I would make sure it is very clear that the rule does apply, just not quite for you. Back to the specific case, the example HOT is giving, disregarding a new rule, is bad for the consideration the rule gets. I'm not speaking of individual HOT editors, they are outsiders to both organizations, and who knows their relation to OSM is only "thanks" to HOT, I'm speaking of HOT as an organization. Even if I completely agree with removing my edit, which was a provocation more than anything else, I do believe that a special exemption is less bad than a general disrespect. And then again: I would start with HOT, to see the guidelines neatly applied, criticized, enhanced, not leave it for "later". Mariotomo (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguity in the guidelines

I don't see a means of contacting OSMF on this topic, so posting here for a steer to the right place.

To me the paragraph of the Guidelines below is unhelpfully ambiguous. Possibly it conceives of two groups of contributors, but if so, there is no indication of which group is which or how constituted. Or possibly there aren't two groups but some other configuration of "contributors" in communication with "other contributors".

Obviously the Guidelines aren't a wiki. If others agree this could be improved, I'd be glad to know how to go about it. Thanks, eteb3 (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Communication with other contributors Contributors should respond to communication attempts made in good faith by other contributors. Communications can also be escalated to a person in charge of communication, for example a coordinator.

OSMF, Organised editing guidelines

Well spotted! I agree that I could have written this in a clearer way. Everyone should respond to other contributors when the communication attempt is in good faith, whether you're part of an organised edit or not, and whether the person contacting you is part of an organised edit or not - that's just long standing OSM practice. In the special case where you have a person who's in charge of communication, which can happen for example if there is a language barrier, this says that you can delegate communication to someone else. Conceivably, two persons in charge of communication of two organised edits could communicate with each other. There are no two groups of contributors.
--Stereo (talk) 10:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)