Hi,
Can we eventually have a public, official, serious reply from Data
Working Group which don’t use argumentum ad hominem as part of the
reasoning?
Assuming for a moment that you mistakenly used the term “ad hominem” to
mean “having to do with a person”:
To get an answer that does not have anything to do with a person, you
need to ask a question that does not have anything to do with a person.
The public, official, serious reply to the question “can you use
copyrighted sources to contribute to OSM” is “no”. This is the only
“standard” there is, and the DWG is happy to re-iterate that to anyone
asking. As I only recently in a Panama-related discussion, here:
Rutas de MetroBus en Panama - #46 by woodpeck.
In everyday DWG work, a case cannot be separated from the history of
both the person reporting someone and the person whose behaviour is
reported. The DWG will always look at (or remember) potential past
interactions and they will inform how a case is dealt with. A “repeat
offender” will be blocked more quickly than someone who makes a mistake
for the first time. A year-long feud between two mappers who accuse each
other of wrongdoing might receive less attention than a report by
someone who has a history of making factual and well-researched cases,
and so on.
So, “how many standards does the DWG use”? - There are rules that
everyone is expected to adhere to. But how exactly these will be applied
is a case-by-case decision. There are as many “standards” as there are
cases.
Bye
Frederik