I think that it is very important that the Mediation Committee be empowered
to send cases to the Arbitration Committee. I understand that it is
worrisome to people that the Mediation Committee could force the
Arbitration Committee to take a case even if they felt it did not merit
review. However, the mediation process is not being taken seriously: not
only is mediation seen as something that has little to no actual effect,
there are also no negative consequences for trivial requests for mediation.
Mediators are being burned out and very little progress is being made,
despite a couple of successes.
So in short, the Mediation Committee is currently experiencing the very
thing that some members of the Arbitration Committee fear -- being
compelled to take cases where there may not be a serious intent on the part
of those asking for mediation. If those requesting mediation knew that
requests for mediation are part of a serious process that will eventually
lead to a resolution, I believe it would go a long way towards making the
system work better and reducing the burden on mediators -- and NOT but
transferring that burden to the Arbitration Committee.
Also, I think that -- just as the Arbitration Committee has policies about
accepting cases -- the Mediation Committee should be able to set its
policies about how it would decide to refer cases to Arbitration with
discussion from all interested people (and polling if needed). As a member
of the Mediation Committee, I can't imagine asking to have a case referred
to arbitration without consulting with my colleagues, but at the same time
I'm a bit apprehensive about there being some sort of requirement that the
Mediation Committee have a consensus or vote about it before a case is
referred to arbitration. However, I agree that there needs to be agreement
between both committees -- and other Wikipedians, for that matter -- on how
this would work in practice.
And just to clarify for those who aren't intimately involved in these
committees, the current system is that ONLY Jimbo can refer a case to
Arbitration, and then the Arbitration Committee votes on whether to accept
it: "Currently, the arbitrators accept referrals from Jimbo Wales only,
which they decide to arbitrate on based on the voting procedure described
at wikipedia:arbitration policy." Therefore, the change that Jimbo is
supporting would simply be to allow the Mediation Committee to refer cases
without Jimbo's intervention.
<http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011973.html >
I think that we can discuss a set of guidelines on the mediation policy
talk page that will address all of the concerns which have been raised by
people.
Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)
>On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 15:22, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
> As it stands we have an effective mechanism to regulate access to
> arbitration. 4 arbitrators must vote to accept the case. What is
> being talked about is some change which would bypass or abrogate
> that mechanism. Apparently Jimbo's wish, but not absolutely sure.
> One of his referals (Anthony) never got the 4 votes and he made no
> comment.
>
> Fred
Angela wrote:
> I completely agree with Cimon. If participants in
> mediation have followed all the steps of the dispute
> resolution process, mediation has failed, and the
> mediation committee recommends arbitration, is there
> any reason the arbitrators still need to vote on
> whether to accept the case? Can they not trust the
> mediation committee to make these referrals?
Let's not confuse recommendations by the entire mediation committee (majority
vote) with recommendations by a single mediator. The first should be
seriously considered, of course. But only so many cases can be worked on at one
time so we still need to regulate the process.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance Tax Center - File online. File on time.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Let's review where the Mediation/Arbitration system currently stands
in practice:
*The genuine custom for mediation is somewhere between zero and zip.
*Mediation is requested as a method of trolling. So far only
once successfully.
*Mediation is requested and once it starts, one or both of the
disputants will insist on behaving as if it were arbitration.
(This has happened more than once, but which cases, I will not
disclose)
*Once the Arbitration Committee set itself up, it immediately dropped
even the pretense at arbitration and constituted itself as a panel of
grievance hearings with independent power of adjudication.
Where do we go from here?
Well, the first thing to acknowledge is that this how it was always
going to go, no matter what we might have wished. Reality is a harsh
mistress.
The only logical thing to do is to rename the Arbitration Committee
into something more close to what their actual role is, and rename
the Mediation Committee into the Arbitration Committee, and give it
live ammunition. What do I mean with live ammunition? I honestly
don't know! Anything the current "socalled" Arbitration Committee can
bear to part with...
J-V Heiskanen (Formerly Cimon Avaro on a pogostick - RIP)
> On Mar 24, 2004, at 1:32 PM, David Speakman wrote:
>
>> As a venture capital journalist for the past seven years, I am
>> skeptical.
>> Traditional paper encyclopedia companies are going out of business.
Oh, you mean like the way print books have been put out of business by
eBooks like the Nuvomedia Rocket eBook, Softbook, Gemstar REB-1100,
Gemstar REB-1200, and the Franklin eBookman?
--
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net alternate:
dpbsmith(a)alum.mit.edu
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
G'day
I haven't been even lurking on this list recently, but the Village Pump is
busted... much perhaps all of the contents duplicated... and I haven't the
time or expertise to fix it, and the sooner it's done the less work it will
be. TIA.
Andrew A
****
andrewa @ alder . ws
http://www.zeta.org.au/~andrewa
Phone 9441 4476
Mobile 04 2525 4476
****
Just to let people know, Anthony DiPierro is now going around and
reinstating the name, which we have generally avoided using so far, on
Votes for deletion and Votes for undeletion.
--Michael Snow
The subject line says it all...
Should Wikipedia articles, in their first paragraph, explain the
pronunciation of the word that is the article title?
I have removed those on the grounds that Wikipedia is not a dictionary,
but I've been reverted with the argument that a pronunciation guide
doesn't turn an article into a dictionary definition.
My reasoning behind not wanting the pronunciations is that logically,
articles should describe the concept behind a word (e.g. the planet
Uranus) and not the word itself ("Uranus", which could be referring to a
planet, a deity, or even a film). Also, what makes the pronunciation of
Uranus more mention-worthy than that of, say, "planet"?
Timwi
Sigh. Another thinly veiled threat from our dear
friend 142.177.
http://meta.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Maveric149&diff=1997…
"Sadly, you didn't learn your lesson from your first
attempt at slander and censure.
There are very few things you will regret more in your
life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer. What they are doing is wrong,
racist, illegal, immoral and stupid. You seemed to
realize this for a while, but, you have stepped back
in, so, you deserve what you get. This is very sad.
You seemed to have grown up. But obviously not."
"There are very few things you will regret more in
your life than defending your little clique of friends
here, Daniel Mayer." Sounds a lot like a mobster
telling a buisnessman that he will "regret" not doing
what the mobster wants. Sigh.
Sorry Craig Hubley (who lives in the Toranto area),
but the only regret is that I gave you some slack. The
hard ban will be enforced.
If my mentioning the real name of 142.177 was out of
line, then somebody delete this post.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/
----- Original Message -----
From: Timwi <timwi(a)gmx.net>
Date: Sunday, March 28, 2004 0:45 am
Subject: [WikiEN-l] Should articles explain pronunciation?
>
> The subject line says it all...
>
> Should Wikipedia articles, in their first paragraph, explain the
> pronunciation of the word that is the article title?
Where the pronounciation may be unclear (for example, with most foreign-language words), or just plain hard, yes. Otherwise, no.
John
At http://world.std.com/obi/Biographical/
there's a copyleft list of 15,000 biography stubs (one-liners). It goes
like this:
Abbot, Charles Greeley (C. G. Abbot) US astrophysicist; secy. of
Smithsonian Institution 1928-1944 _1872-1973
I think we all agree to use that resource. But how?
1. As one (or multiple) long lists, with links to the appropriate
article, so we can manually paste the stub into the article
2. As automatically generated stub for each non-existing article
#1 would not require much work, #2 would need one of the wiki-bots.
Thoughts? (I hope so;-)
Magnus