StreetComplete is an easy to use editor of OpenStreetMap data available for Android. It can be used without any OpenStreetMap-specific knowledge. It asks simple questions, with answers directly used to edit and improve OpenStreetMap data. The app is aimed at users who do not know anything about OSM tagging schemes but still want to contribute to OpenStreetMap.
StreetComplete automatically looks for nearby places where a survey is needed and shows them as quest markers on its map. Each of these quests can then be solved on site by answering a simple question. For example, tapping on a marker may show the question "What is the name of this road?", with a text field to answer it. More examples are shown in the screenshots below.
The user's answer is automatically processed and uploaded directly into the OSM database. Edits are done in meaningful changesets using the user's OSM account. Since the app is meant to be used on a survey, it can be used offline and is economic with data usage.
This is great! I wish more knowledge bases realized their barrier to entry. Eg even Wikipedia can be scary to edit the first time, if you want to present things like citations the right way.
Wikipedia is fine. Just make sure the content itself is good and appropriate for Wikipedia (such as no original research) and formatting citations is really least of your worries. When you do it wrong, some other editor will come and fix it.
You accidentally found a good example reason for the rule to exist. It's only relatively recently (2019-2021-ish) that Germany had more pre-slided bread move than unsliced loaves.
Therefore scoping the claim being made with citations actually does improve the wiki's accuracy.
You can say bread is sold pre-sliced accurately in a colloquial sense, but actually making a claim - as an encyclopedia inherently does - should carry information on how general a claim it actually is.
That doesn’t in any way invalidate that bread is sold sliced. That is the assertion, that sliced bread is available for sale. Even in places where bread is typically sold unsliced, the concept of sliced bread exists.
Or are you claiming that you are completely unaware of unsliced bread and need a citation to verify its existence?
Would it be appropriate for the Wikipedia article on "milk" to mention that it's sold frozen, unqualified, simply because that has happened?
Bread is usually sold sliced in some places, and usually sold unsliced in others. For a claim about this to be useful for wikipedia it should be specific and cited.
> rather than simply wording the statement to more accurately reflect the situation?
I'm arguing that this should be done, and yet a citation is still important. You didn't answer my question about milk. In what situation would it be appropriate to mention milk being sold frozen without a citation? For example, human milk banks actually do freeze the milk for transport, but if this is mentioned in a wikipedia article, it should be cited! Same goes for making a claim about whether bread is sold sliced or unsliced (even if both are encountered more commonly than frozen milk)
In rigorous academic contexts things that are generally accepted or common knowledge do not need to be cited. Nobody is disputing the existence of frozen milk or sliced bread for sale. They are commonly known and accepted facts. We do not need a peer reviewed citation for those claims to be believable.
The claim is not that sliced bread is always available in every place on earth. Nor is it that bread is usually sliced. That is a different claim that you have added. The claim is that sliced bread is available for sale, nonspecifically. It is a commonly known fact that bread can be purchased sliced in some places.
If you make a specific claim, like: sliced bread is not usually available in Nordic countries, I could see that needing a citation. You have made specific claims about sliced bread availability and market preferences. I am making the general case that it exists.
The point is that there is some basic level of knowledge that we don’t need to validate with a third party source. People drink water. I’ve never seen a scientific study or source for this, but it is universally accepted as truth. Bread is sold sliced sometimes is a similar fact.
It’s not. There are clear guidelines. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
In practice it is murkier. On one article, I see an editor has removed some material for not having enough references, and yet on the same article he has removed other material for being "ref-bombed" as he puts it, i.e. having too many references.
This is one of the worst Wikipedia rules. It gives way too much power to institutions giving them free reign to publish misinformation as long as they don't care about fact checking each other, which is common for niche subjects where corrections are not going to get as many clicks as "drama" would.
I have very different experience with Wikipedia. editors/admins etc who, I assume, have nothing better to do with their lives, use it to play powerful using some arcane Wikipedia jargon
Feels like government bureaucracy of the worst sort
JBiserkov · · focus · HN ↗
StreetComplete is an easy to use editor of OpenStreetMap data available for Android. It can be used without any OpenStreetMap-specific knowledge. It asks simple questions, with answers directly used to edit and improve OpenStreetMap data. The app is aimed at users who do not know anything about OSM tagging schemes but still want to contribute to OpenStreetMap.
StreetComplete automatically looks for nearby places where a survey is needed and shows them as quest markers on its map. Each of these quests can then be solved on site by answering a simple question. For example, tapping on a marker may show the question "What is the name of this road?", with a text field to answer it. More examples are shown in the screenshots below.
The user's answer is automatically processed and uploaded directly into the OSM database. Edits are done in meaningful changesets using the user's OSM account. Since the app is meant to be used on a survey, it can be used offline and is economic with data usage.
amenghra · · focus · HN ↗
kccqzy · · focus · HN ↗
encom · · focus · HN ↗
Ardon · · focus · HN ↗
Therefore scoping the claim being made with citations actually does improve the wiki's accuracy.
You can say bread is sold pre-sliced accurately in a colloquial sense, but actually making a claim - as an encyclopedia inherently does - should carry information on how general a claim it actually is.
victorbjorklund · · focus · HN ↗
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
Or are you claiming that you are completely unaware of unsliced bread and need a citation to verify its existence?
pcthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
Bread is usually sold sliced in some places, and usually sold unsliced in others. For a claim about this to be useful for wikipedia it should be specific and cited.
chorsestudios · · focus · HN ↗
Bread is sold both sliced and unsliced, sometimes geographic location impacts which variation is predominant.
pcthrowaway · · focus · HN ↗
I'm arguing that this should be done, and yet a citation is still important. You didn't answer my question about milk. In what situation would it be appropriate to mention milk being sold frozen without a citation? For example, human milk banks actually do freeze the milk for transport, but if this is mentioned in a wikipedia article, it should be cited! Same goes for making a claim about whether bread is sold sliced or unsliced (even if both are encountered more commonly than frozen milk)
encom · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxU2eqZtYmc" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxU2eqZtYmc
dghlsakjg · · focus · HN ↗
In rigorous academic contexts things that are generally accepted or common knowledge do not need to be cited. Nobody is disputing the existence of frozen milk or sliced bread for sale. They are commonly known and accepted facts. We do not need a peer reviewed citation for those claims to be believable.
The claim is not that sliced bread is always available in every place on earth. Nor is it that bread is usually sliced. That is a different claim that you have added. The claim is that sliced bread is available for sale, nonspecifically. It is a commonly known fact that bread can be purchased sliced in some places.
If you make a specific claim, like: sliced bread is not usually available in Nordic countries, I could see that needing a citation. You have made specific claims about sliced bread availability and market preferences. I am making the general case that it exists.
The point is that there is some basic level of knowledge that we don’t need to validate with a third party source. People drink water. I’ve never seen a scientific study or source for this, but it is universally accepted as truth. Bread is sold sliced sometimes is a similar fact.
nephihaha · · focus · HN ↗
dndkdkdkdk · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
kccqzy · · focus · HN ↗
xmprt · · focus · HN ↗
nephihaha · · focus · HN ↗
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
This is one of the worst Wikipedia rules. It gives way too much power to institutions giving them free reign to publish misinformation as long as they don't care about fact checking each other, which is common for niche subjects where corrections are not going to get as many clicks as "drama" would.
samat · · focus · HN ↗
Feels like government bureaucracy of the worst sort
mycall · · focus · HN ↗