Filter bubbles in OSM

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
25 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Filter bubbles in OSM

Andy Townsend
On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" thread:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have
> a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X
> more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list
> (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could
> not be more stark ...

Nick,

I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in
some sense) people like you.  They're people that you know personally
well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a
geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. 
These people are essentially self-selecting - they will interact the
same way as you, and are probably more likely to agree with you.

OSM is a global project.  By that very definition there will be people
who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs
to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other
because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone.  Sometimes
people talk in ways that don't (to borrow Simon's phrase) "wrap any
criticism in multiple layers of cotton wool".  This list has an owner,
and although some list owners are more active than others OSM mailing
lists have certainly warned people in the past when people have e.g.
made unsolicited allegations.

The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions
outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable,
community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to
set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and
who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in
some sense) "people like you".

I'd actually like to make it easier rather than harder for people to
take part in international discussions - features on the web site such
as changeset discussion comments (and even indirectly the report
buttons) are a way of stimulating conversation between people who are
united only in the fact that they're editing the same map.  When
communicating with people on behalf of the DWG (and when suggesting how
people communicate with others) I've always suggested trying to send
something in the recipient's own language.  Even if it's a machine
translation and a bit rubbish they will hopefully understand that "some
other human being is trying to communicate with me".

Various OSM communities have tried different communication mechanisms. 
Lots of OSM people in the US love Slack, whereas I suspect that a number
of German OSMers would run a mile if asked to use it (a bit too
corporate).  The subset of OSMers in the UK that are part of the "OS UK
chapter" are using a closed discussion board called "Loomio", but as a
volume communications mechanism it's not been a success - there's much
less traffic there than https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb 
.  OSM's a distributed project, and different communities will pick what
works for them, but there still needs to be an open way to communicate
internationally - you shouldn't have to pass a test that you can "wrap
messages in cotton wool" before joining.

It's perfectly reasonable for a group designing something that's part of
OSM to need a space away from the hubbub to discuss things; that's why
github issues get closed and locked.  It's even OK (if arguably somewhat
ill-advised) to write what was written in
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649 
which among various other inflammatory stuff seems to say "it doesn't
matter how right you are and how wrong we are; we'll do it anyway";
what's not OK is to expect people not to call the author out on that and
it's not OK to try and shut down the wider discussion (e.g. on this
mailing list).

To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or
USA mappers vs German mappers.  I've seen a few examples around the
world recently with a DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do
X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained. 
The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit
more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as
they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a
few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a
subforum at forum.osm.org).  The second bunch of people complain that
something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was
wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem.  Everyone's acting in good
faith - they're trying to do the right thing but somehow communication
doesn't quite occur.  What everyone (including me) needs to try and do
is to say "OK, that didn't quite work; how do we try and make it work
better next time?"  I'm sure that the answer to that last question isn't
choosing who can and who can't be part of the discussion.

Best Regards,

Andy

(a member of the Data Working Group but writing in an entirely personal
capacity, obviously)



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

bkil
Not sure about the context of this message but Andy's reasoning seems sound.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 2:26 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" thread:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have
> a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X
> more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list
> (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could
> not be more stark ...

Nick,

I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in
some sense) people like you.  They're people that you know personally
well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a
geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. 
These people are essentially self-selecting - they will interact the
same way as you, and are probably more likely to agree with you.

OSM is a global project.  By that very definition there will be people
who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs
to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other
because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone.  Sometimes
people talk in ways that don't (to borrow Simon's phrase) "wrap any
criticism in multiple layers of cotton wool".  This list has an owner,
and although some list owners are more active than others OSM mailing
lists have certainly warned people in the past when people have e.g.
made unsolicited allegations.

The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions
outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable,
community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to
set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and
who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in
some sense) "people like you".

I'd actually like to make it easier rather than harder for people to
take part in international discussions - features on the web site such
as changeset discussion comments (and even indirectly the report
buttons) are a way of stimulating conversation between people who are
united only in the fact that they're editing the same map.  When
communicating with people on behalf of the DWG (and when suggesting how
people communicate with others) I've always suggested trying to send
something in the recipient's own language.  Even if it's a machine
translation and a bit rubbish they will hopefully understand that "some
other human being is trying to communicate with me".

Various OSM communities have tried different communication mechanisms. 
Lots of OSM people in the US love Slack, whereas I suspect that a number
of German OSMers would run a mile if asked to use it (a bit too
corporate).  The subset of OSMers in the UK that are part of the "OS UK
chapter" are using a closed discussion board called "Loomio", but as a
volume communications mechanism it's not been a success - there's much
less traffic there than https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
.  OSM's a distributed project, and different communities will pick what
works for them, but there still needs to be an open way to communicate
internationally - you shouldn't have to pass a test that you can "wrap
messages in cotton wool" before joining.

It's perfectly reasonable for a group designing something that's part of
OSM to need a space away from the hubbub to discuss things; that's why
github issues get closed and locked.  It's even OK (if arguably somewhat
ill-advised) to write what was written in
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649
which among various other inflammatory stuff seems to say "it doesn't
matter how right you are and how wrong we are; we'll do it anyway";
what's not OK is to expect people not to call the author out on that and
it's not OK to try and shut down the wider discussion (e.g. on this
mailing list).

To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or
USA mappers vs German mappers.  I've seen a few examples around the
world recently with a DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do
X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained. 
The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit
more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as
they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a
few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a
subforum at forum.osm.org).  The second bunch of people complain that
something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was
wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem.  Everyone's acting in good
faith - they're trying to do the right thing but somehow communication
doesn't quite occur.  What everyone (including me) needs to try and do
is to say "OK, that didn't quite work; how do we try and make it work
better next time?"  I'm sure that the answer to that last question isn't
choosing who can and who can't be part of the discussion.

Best Regards,

Andy

(a member of the Data Working Group but writing in an entirely personal
capacity, obviously)



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Andy Townsend
> I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in some sense) people like you.  They're people that you know personally well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined.

Of course. Though the people that have self-selected outside of this mailing list are on an international scope and often have no more obviously in common than being an OSM enthusiast with the time (and resources) to attend an event.

> OSM is a global project.  By that very definition there will be people who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs 
to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone.

That's exactly right, and one reason why toxicity is incredibly counterproductive: there's enough challenges in communicating on a global scale, already. 

I don't believe any of the points I've made wouldn't apply to an international audience. Nobody is incapable of not going after someone else personally. The lack of decorum is not a language problem. I speak one of the non-English languages that is often used to excuse this behavior. I've visited countries where it is spoken, I've visited other communities in that language. It's not in any way intrinsic to that language or associated cultures.

> The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in some sense) "people like you".

I'm not sure why anyone assumes this is the case. I want no part in moderation - if anything, that's where I should be criticized! Not even going to take on mod duties, what's he complaining about?

I'm suggesting that there be a community-oriented code of conduct. I say this because self-regulation is failing - would if I could not have to suggest it. As an example, the SOTM has one: https://2019.stateofthemap.org/codeofconduct/. Its purpose is to avoid harassment and promote an inclusive community, though other conferences tend to include more language that extends beyond harassment.

The idea is: maybe the primary place people are supposed to go for feedback on tags, sometimes their first experience with the community, shouldn't be alienating. I want more people mapping OSM and I want to tell them to use this resource. I'm conflicted on that recommendation.

> To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or USA mappers vs German mappers.  I've seen a few examples around the 
world recently with DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained.  
> The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a subforum at forum.osm.org).

Exactly! There are many places to go and none appear to be any more official than the next - a side-effect of a distributed community with no central, open, discoverable forum. Perhaps that situation could've been avoided with better community discussion tools and UX on openstreetmap.org.

It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions.

> The second bunch of people complain that something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem.  Everyone's acting in good 
faith - they're trying to do the right thing but somehow communication doesn't quite occur.  What everyone (including me) needs to try and do is to say "OK, that didn't quite work; how do we try and make it work better next time?"  I'm sure that the answer to that last question isn't choosing who can and who can't be part of the discussion.

I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 5:26 AM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 23/05/2019 20:58, Nick Bolten wrote (in the "solving iD conflict" thread:
> OSM needs an alternative for community tagging discussions outside of
> these mailing lists. Ones that people will actually use and that have
> a reasonable, community-oriented code of conduct. I have talked to 10X
> more people about my `crossing` proposals outside of this mailing list
> (in-person, personal emails, slack, etc.) and the differences could
> not be more stark ...

Nick,

I don't doubt your last sentence at all - but these people are all (in
some sense) people like you.  They're people that you know personally
well enough to meet personally or exchange emails with, or from a
geographically-centred community (Slack) that you have both joined. 
These people are essentially self-selecting - they will interact the
same way as you, and are probably more likely to agree with you.

OSM is a global project.  By that very definition there will be people
who don't share your views, approach or language, yet it the map belongs
to everyone, and sometimes we have to find ways to talk to each other
because we need to talk about stuff that applies to everyone.  Sometimes
people talk in ways that don't (to borrow Simon's phrase) "wrap any
criticism in multiple layers of cotton wool".  This list has an owner,
and although some list owners are more active than others OSM mailing
lists have certainly warned people in the past when people have e.g.
made unsolicited allegations.

The problem with "an alternative for community tagging discussions
outside of these mailing lists ... that have a reasonable,
community-oriented code of conduct" is that it sounds like you want to
set rules about who is allowed to participate in those discussions and
who is not, and that people that would be allowed to participate are (in
some sense) "people like you".

I'd actually like to make it easier rather than harder for people to
take part in international discussions - features on the web site such
as changeset discussion comments (and even indirectly the report
buttons) are a way of stimulating conversation between people who are
united only in the fact that they're editing the same map.  When
communicating with people on behalf of the DWG (and when suggesting how
people communicate with others) I've always suggested trying to send
something in the recipient's own language.  Even if it's a machine
translation and a bit rubbish they will hopefully understand that "some
other human being is trying to communicate with me".

Various OSM communities have tried different communication mechanisms. 
Lots of OSM people in the US love Slack, whereas I suspect that a number
of German OSMers would run a mile if asked to use it (a bit too
corporate).  The subset of OSMers in the UK that are part of the "OS UK
chapter" are using a closed discussion board called "Loomio", but as a
volume communications mechanism it's not been a success - there's much
less traffic there than https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
.  OSM's a distributed project, and different communities will pick what
works for them, but there still needs to be an open way to communicate
internationally - you shouldn't have to pass a test that you can "wrap
messages in cotton wool" before joining.

It's perfectly reasonable for a group designing something that's part of
OSM to need a space away from the hubbub to discuss things; that's why
github issues get closed and locked.  It's even OK (if arguably somewhat
ill-advised) to write what was written in
https://github.com/openstreetmap/iD/issues/6409#issuecomment-495231649
which among various other inflammatory stuff seems to say "it doesn't
matter how right you are and how wrong we are; we'll do it anyway";
what's not OK is to expect people not to call the author out on that and
it's not OK to try and shut down the wider discussion (e.g. on this
mailing list).

To be clear, this isn't just about iD, or mailing lists, or Slack, or
USA mappers vs German mappers.  I've seen a few examples around the
world recently with a DWG hat on where a bunch of people decided to do
X, but some other people somehow didn't know about it and complained. 
The first bunch of people could perhaps have tried to make things a bit
more public, but they probably didn't realise they hadn't done this as
they were using the communications channel that "everyone" uses (in a
few specific examples I can think of that was Telegram, Slack, or a
subforum at forum.osm.org).  The second bunch of people complain that
something happened that they weren't expecting and that it was
wrong/undiscussed/some other sort of problem.  Everyone's acting in good
faith - they're trying to do the right thing but somehow communication
doesn't quite occur.  What everyone (including me) needs to try and do
is to say "OK, that didn't quite work; how do we try and make it work
better next time?"  I'm sure that the answer to that last question isn't
choosing who can and who can't be part of the discussion.

Best Regards,

Andy

(a member of the Data Working Group but writing in an entirely personal
capacity, obviously)



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Paul Allen
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions.

A toxic environment, eh?  Doesn't that imply that some of those posting here are toxic?  Wouldn't
accusing people of being toxic itself be toxic behaviour?  Oh, only if you mention them by name,
eh?

In any case, I didn't notice any toxicity about this environment until you showed up.  Strange, that.

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Nick Bolten
How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. 

Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community?

Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread?

I've tried both. Maybe there's a third option?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:54 AM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 19:43, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
It's a two-pronged recipe for disaster: make it very difficult to independently know what to do, then have an often toxic environment for those who suss out the semi-official, non-obvious place to ask questions.

A toxic environment, eh?  Doesn't that imply that some of those posting here are toxic?  Wouldn't
accusing people of being toxic itself be toxic behaviour?  Oh, only if you mention them by name,
eh?

In any case, I didn't notice any toxicity about this environment until you showed up.  Strange, that.

--
Paul

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Paul Allen
On Fri, 24 May 2019 at 20:01, Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> wrote:
How do you propose visitors of the mailing list address responses like this, Andy? I'm not being sassy: I honestly want to know. 

Should it be ignored, becoming implicitly acceptable to the community?

Should it be called out, creating a long-running petty thread?

I've tried both. Maybe there's a third option?

Have you tried running to the teacher?  That's a third option you could try.  Tell the teacher that
poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is bad and that's
why Paul is a poopy-head.

Now you can call me condescending.  Again.  As long as you don't mention me by name.

SMFH

--
Paul


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Clifford Snow


On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 1:01 PM Paul Allen <[hidden email]> wrote:

Have you tried running to the teacher?  That's a third option you could try.  Tell the teacher that
poopy-head Paul called you a poopy-head and calling people a poopy-head is bad and that's
why Paul is a poopy-head.

Now you can call me condescending.  Again.  As long as you don't mention me by name.


Can we please get back to adult conversation. I would suggest restarting the discussion in a new thread with a commitment from participants to civilized constructive comments and proposals. 

Thanks,
Clifford

 
--
@osm_washington
OpenStreetMap: Maps with a human touch

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Florian Lohoff-2
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:42:18AM -0700, Nick Bolten wrote:
> I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an inclusive
> community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal accusations so
> easily? It hasn't happened on its own.

I havent seen personal harassment so far and other projects i am
involved in got much less attractive when given a "code of conduct".

Often the CoC this is abused turning people away beeing loud or
direct in their tone. CoC by itself is neither a guarantee nor
a method to create an inclusive community. Its just a matter of
defining whom to exclude not if.

Flo
--
Florian Lohoff                                                 [hidden email]
        UTF-8 Test: The 🐈 ran after a 🐁, but the 🐁 ran away

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
> inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
> accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>
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 ...

Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".

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).

If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
"Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.

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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
listening is the key.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Nick Bolten
> 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
> inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
> accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>
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 ...

Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".

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).

If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
"Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.

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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
listening is the key.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Frederik Ramm
In reply to this post by Florian Lohoff-2
Hi,

On 25.05.19 00:11, Florian Lohoff wrote:
> Its just a matter of
> defining whom to exclude not if.

True.

My son attends a school that favours being inclusive, and this means
that there's one student in the class who has a form of autism that lets
him often loudly protest against assignments, throw stuff on the ground
and leave the room in a huff. You'll find quite a few parents at this
school saying "well I'm all for inclusion but this is starting to impact
my child's education negatively..."

It's easy to rattle off a catalogue of behaviours we will all agree on
that they have no place here. Threats of violence, racist or sexist
abuse would get someone kicked out whether or not we have codified rules
or processes. These are extremely rare, though, and are certainly not
the problem people refer to when they say that the lists are not welcoming.

The problems that people often cite are softer in nature: The "culture"
was not "welcoming", they felt "attacked" or not treated respectfully
enough. These are much, much harder to codify, and I know quite a few
proponents of strict code-of-conduct rules who are against any soft
rules like that.

People have a right to be treated with respect, but that does not mean
that we need to extend US American style courtesy to everyone because US
Americans have the narrowest definition of what counts as respectful. We
want and need passionate debate about issues in this grassroots project;
if someone offers a very bad idea, then nobody benefits if people say
"this is a GREAT idea, I'd just like to suggest a small change" -
tearing the idea apart in public is totally ok and if people can't stand
that kind of (intellectual) heat then they cannot be part of that aspect
of the project in which such ideas are debated. There ought to be a safe
space for people, but there cannot be a safe space in which bad ideas
are allowed to live just because nobody dares to call them out.

Sometimes people attack the person presenting an idea, instead of
attacking the idea. This is something that we can work on and improve.
On the other hand, sometimes people feel attacked or "not welcomed" when
you tell them that their idea is not a good one, or that they have made
a mistake. If in this situation people are allowed to invoke some rule
that demands everyone be welcoming all the time, then we can probably
stop discussing anything right away, because the person with the
thinnest skin will be the last one left standing.

This, however, is leading us far off topic.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Silent Spike
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 11:49 PM Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>
> I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
> inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
> accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>
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 ...

Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".

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).

If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
"Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.

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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
listening is the key.

Best Regards,

Andy



_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Frederik Ramm
Hi,

On 25.05.19 01:12, Silent Spike wrote:
> In support of Nick's points above, reading many of the discussions on
> this mailing list today has me just about ready to unsubscribe.

There are many reasons why someone could be disappointed by this mailing
list, or by tagging discussions in general, and decide to stop
participating.

The way you write it above, however, sounds like you're assigning blame,
in precisely the disparaging way that Andy has pointed to in his other
message - you seem to be saying "I'm done with this lot, I don't like
the people here".

It would be helpful if people could refrain from making general
hand-wavy statements about mailing lists somehow being unworthy of their
time.

For example, if you have a complex idea like e.g. the "disputed
boundaries" that we discussed a while ago, you need to bring a
combination of skills to the table to succeed:

* You need the understanding and experience in OSM to create a workable
proposal.

* You need clarity of thought and the ability to express your idea
clearly, even to people who are not native speakers of English (or you
might yourself not be).

* You need diplomatic or political skills to find compromise, to get
others to support your idea, and the willingness to iterate again and
again.

* and a lot of patience!

This can be a demanding process and not everyone is cut out for it. Of
10 who attempt it, perhaps one succeeds and the others throw in the
towel and even stop participating altogether. It would be sad, and a
little disingenuous, if these people were then running around telling
everyone how shite the tagging list is just because they didn't get
their proposal through on the first attempt.

And the same happens on smaller scales of course. You could be
suggesting something and be faced with the opinions of people from the
other side of the globe, for whom what you suggest is outlandish, or of
people who live nearby but whose vision of OSM could not be more
different than your own.

I'm sure the communications can be improved in many ways, but even if
everyone were super respectful, all this would still be *hard* and
taxing and many people would leave because they just don't have the
patience that decision making in a large, international group of
volunteers with minimal authoritarianism takes. Ask anyone who's working
at the EU or the UN...

I think OSM on the whole should be welcoming for everyone, in that
everyone can find a place where they can make a useful contribution. But
I doubt that this mailing list, or any body that discusses tagging, can
ever be built in a way that everyone feels happy to contribute.

So please, if you feel your talent is better applied to other areas of
OSM, just do it - that's great. There's no need for a "sour grapes"
approach because you found that tagging discussions were not for you.

Bye
Frederik

--
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [hidden email]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Filter bubbles in OSM

Andy Townsend
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
On 24/05/2019 23:47, Nick Bolten wrote:
> Of course, but this won't help new users asking questions. They will
> still have a negative experience.

New users asking questions probably fall more within the remit of the
help site ("how do I do X") rather than this list ("how should we change
OSM's tagging to better represent X").  Before asking there I'd also
suggest a quick scan of https://stackoverflow.com/help/how-to-ask first
- although OSM's help site is far less prescriptive than StackOverflow
in terms of how to ask questions and what sorts of questions are
permitted. If someone's first language isn't English and there's a
community for that language in e.g. the OSM forum I'd suggest asking
there instead.

You say "They will still have a negative experience" as if it's
guaranteed, but without further evidence about what was actually said
and how the experience was perceived to be negative it's difficult to
comment further.  I'm sure that it is possible to have a negative
experience here* (and in any other OSM or non-OSM forum), but simply
stating that "they will still have a negative experience" doesn't allow
anyone to understand what went wrong and how everyone can do better next
time.

Best Regards,

Andy

*to be honest, the list volume can be a bit much (regardless of
content).  I make more use of "move messages matching X to a folder
unread" and "mark entire thread as read" for this list than any other
OSM one.




_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Nick Bolten
> 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>
> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>     >
>     > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>     > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>     > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>     >
>     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 ...
>
>     Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>     both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
>     both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>     community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>     the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>     in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>     about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".
>
>     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).
>
>     If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>     X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>     the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>     response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>     misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>     "Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
>     It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>     paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>
>     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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>     you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>     problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>     ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>     allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
>     listening is the key.
>
>     Best Regards,
>
>     Andy
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Tagging mailing list
>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Tobias Zwick

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 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>     >
>>     > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>>     > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>>     > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>>     >
>>     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 ...
>>
>>     Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>>     both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
>>     both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>>     community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>>     the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>>     in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>>     about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".
>>
>>     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).
>>
>>     If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>>     X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>>     the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>>     response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>>     misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>>     "Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
>>     It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>>     paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>>
>>     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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>>     you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>>     problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>>     ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>>     allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
>>     listening is the key.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Paul Allen

On Sat, 25 May 2019 at 01:29, Tobias Zwick <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Tobias Zwick
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
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 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>>>     > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>>>     > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>>>     >
>>>     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 ...
>>>
>>>     Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>>>     both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
>>>     both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>>>     community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>>>     the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>>>     in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>>>     about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".
>>>
>>>     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).
>>>
>>>     If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>>>     X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>>>     the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>>>     response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>>>     misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>>>     "Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
>>>     It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>>>     paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>>>
>>>     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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>>>     you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>>>     problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>>>     ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>>>     allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
>>>     listening is the key.
>>>
>>>     Best Regards,
>>>
>>>     Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Tagging mailing list
>>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Tagging mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Nick Bolten
In reply to this post by Tobias Zwick
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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>     >
>>     > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>>     > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>>     > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>>     >
>>     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 ...
>>
>>     Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>>     both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
>>     both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>>     community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>>     the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>>     in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>>     about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".
>>
>>     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).
>>
>>     If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>>     X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>>     the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>>     response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>>     misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>>     "Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
>>     It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>>     paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>>
>>     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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>>     you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>>     problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>>     ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>>     allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
>>     listening is the key.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Constructive communication medium (was:Filter bubbles in OSM)

Nick Bolten
Oof, sorry, I managed to discuss software despite your last message. Please disregard.

On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 7:06 PM Nick Bolten <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 can see that happen pretty often. How do we make that happen more?
>>
>> On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 3:14 PM Andy Townsend <[hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>>
>>     On 24/05/2019 19:42, Nick Bolten wrote:
>>     >
>>     > I'd like that to be the case. What is the plan for making this an
>>     > inclusive community that doesn't devolve into negative, personal
>>     > accusations so easily? It hasn't happened on its own.
>>     >
>>     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 ...
>>
>>     Firstly, it helps if everyone tries to understand how "community" works
>>     both within and without OSM.  People attach themselves to communities
>>     both electronic and physical, and when you attack the place where the
>>     community is based to some extent you attack the community itself and
>>     the people in it.  For example, if I talk about the town down the road
>>     in a derogatory way people from that town are going to think I'm talking
>>     about them and think that they are somehow bad people.  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?".
>>
>>     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).
>>
>>     If you've said something, and someone interprets it as "you are/believe
>>     X [bad thing]" then a flat denial "I didn't call you X" is probably not
>>     the best way to respond (it invites "oh yes you did" as an unhelpful
>>     response).  Take a step back, try and understand how they could have
>>     misunderstood what you were trying to say, and reply along the lines of
>>     "Sorry about the misunderstanding.  What I was trying to say was ...". 
>>     It also helps to try and depersonalise the language (as I tried to 2
>>     paragraphs up ^^) - don't say "you"; talk about "the problem", for example.
>>
>>     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.  Maybe you've misunderstood how the status quo came to be and
>>     you haven't presented a practical way of getting to a solution to the
>>     problem.  Rather than keep trying to push the same boulder up the hill,
>>     ask others to help trying to reframe the problem in a way that might
>>     allow another solution to emerge.  Sometimes just sitting back and
>>     listening is the key.
>>
>>     Best Regards,
>>
>>     Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     Tagging mailing list
>>     [hidden email] <mailto:[hidden email]>
>>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Tagging mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tagging mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
>


_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging

_______________________________________________
Tagging mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
12