[hackerspaces] content review project

aimee at ecohackerfarm.org aimee at ecohackerfarm.org
Sun Jan 6 17:01:25 CET 2019

On 2018-12-31 18:06, Nate Bezanson wrote:
> On 2018-12-31 10:20 a.m., Aljaž Srebrnič wrote:
>> On 31 Dec 2018, at 15:35, "aimee at ecohackerfarm.org 
>> <mailto:aimee at ecohackerfarm.org>" <aimee at ecohackerfarm.org 
>> <mailto:aimee at ecohackerfarm.org>> wrote:
>>> d. working with me on the harder cases ie where this is no contact 
>>> info and only deadlinks to update profiles to identify whether the 
>>> space is truly still active somehow before amending them to inactive
>> I can assist, we should probably have a Category for these special 
>> cases, or a list on the wiki.
> We already have a category for that. I think these spaces should be 
> categorized as "inactive" just like the ones which deliberately set 
> themselves to that status, but perhaps with an additional "reason for 
> inactive status = all links broken and the last edit was eons ago" 
> sort of tag, so someone sifting through the dregs can understand what 
> happened.
agreed for cases with dead contact info and dead links
> The task becomes clearer if we first remind ourselves of one 
> fundamental fact: *Inclusion on the list is voluntary* -- I don't 
> think hs.o has any obligation to list a space against their will. And 
> if they haven't provided working links that point to an active space, 
> in a data-quality sense that's equivalent to linking to an inactive 
> space.
> There are a *lot* of "aspirational" entries created years ago with a 
> single edit, no working contact info, and Googling for their name 
> results in nothing more recent than that year. Chasing these ghosts 
> and saying it's hs.o's job to chase them will just wear out volunteers 
> and lead to a feeling of a sisyphean task. Simply remembering that 
> ghosts aren't alive, makes the problem space much more practical.
> That being said, sleuthing out the people behind those years-old 
> inactive entries might be an interesting way to connect with locals 
> who lost the vision in one way or another. I would still encourage 
> people to track down their local ghosts and learn their stories just 
> for fun. Maybe write down those stories into their pages, even as 
> those pages sit in Category:Inactive. But I think that's a separate 
> problem from encouraging the spaces that actually exist and want to be 
> on the list and have shown it by creating a useful page which then 
> went stale, to come brush the cobwebs off their page.
> (Side note -- in many cases, the member who last edited a space's 
> entry will be long gone, so someone new will be creating a user 
> account and performing the update. Checking the user signup process 
> and captcha and stuff, *before* blasting out an email that'll make 
> several hundred new people come bang on the signup page and beat their 
> heads against the captcha, would be prudent.)
> Incidentally, I think this is precisely equivalent to the problem that 
> many new spaces struggle with, of unknown stuff cluttering up their 
> physical space. Finite physical space makes that a more obvious 
> problem, but a map or list cluttered with stale entries is just as 
> hard to work with. Most established spaces I'm familiar with have 
> arrived at a pretty strong "abandoned stuff" policy -- the onus is on 
> the owner to label their stuff. The job of the community should be 
> limited to providing the tools to make labeling easy, but it's still 
> up to the individual to do something useful with those tools.
> Also, bear in mind that mass edits will upset the "merit of freshness" 
> that makes the 500 most-recently-updated spaces appear on the map. If 
> every page gets an update, the map will show a view that's very 
> different from what it's been showing. This may eventually settle back 
> down as the updates fade into history, but if there's ongoing 
> automatic or semi-automatic editing, it'll continue to make the map 
> weird. This shouldn't be seen as an argument against doing mass edits, 
> but for a renewed push to improve the map generation. We used to say 
> that exceeding the map limit of 500 active spaces would be a "a good 
> problem to have", and it certainly is, but it's high time to find 
> volunteers with skills to solve it!

are there any volunteers for this map generation issue?

also... wouldn't the map already exclude places that have been marked 
from active to inactive?

> -Nate B-
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.hackerspaces.org
> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.hackerspaces.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20190106/c7d85d8f/attachment.html>

More information about the Discuss mailing list