Talk:Vandalism
 Archives | |
|---|---|
| |
Discuss the Vandalism page here:
Say where to report vandalism
Mention where to report vandalism.
Big cases apparently should be reported to [email protected], is all the user can dig out of the article.
No the user doesn't always want to edit the map. Jidanni (talk) 04:43, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- As you correctly noted, if someone is unwilling or unable to make an edit then contacting [email protected] is an alternative. It is not encouraged for minor issues as their waiting queue is extremely long already. Maybe opening a note can be considered as an alternative but reaction time may be years or decades. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well most websites have Report or Flag buttons all over the place. Jidanni (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- In OSM making notes report more visible would not be helpful as currently bottleneck is a mapper time necessary to fix them, adding more notes is not so helpful. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well most websites have Report or Flag buttons all over the place. Jidanni (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Self-contradiction?
The initial paragraph says, and did so since the very first version of the page:
- Vandalism is intentionally ignoring the consensus norms of the OpenStreetMap community about editing data.
The detailed description goes on to say that
- There are various other types of bad editing which are very similar to vandalism ... These include: ... Disputes within the OpenStreetMap database (edit wars) ... Deliberate adding incorrect data
There is a self-contradiction here, since many of the bullet points represent "ignoring the consensus norms" yet are listed as "very similar to vandalism" (i.e. not vandalism).
Personally, I think that vandalism requires a malicious intent - you know that your edits damage OSM and you make them nonetheless. In a case where two users disagree about reality (e.g. one says there is a path, the other says there isn't), both users want to improve OSM; nobody wants to damage the map, both users can be long-time OSMers with years and years of good edits under their belt. I believe that the term "vandalism" would not be appropriate in this situation, yet both are likely to claim that the other is "ignoring consensus norms" and will probably quote some arcane passage of the highway=path page to support their claim.
There are may ways in which you can violate consensus norms about editing data - some mentioned further down in the article - e.g. violating the imports or organised editing guidelines; yet it would be strange to call such edits "vandalism" even if the guidelines are intentionally violated.
Perhaps it would make sense to change the introductory paragraph to something like: "Vandalism is any editing that knowingly damages the map, either with the explicit intent to cause damage, or with another intent (e.g. graffitti, research) that knowingly causes damage as a side effect."