First of all, I am not talking just about BLP. This is part of the
problem. I am also concerned about new editors who were treated badly
(that happens more often than you think), about unreasonable decisions
of admins etc. Secondly, such ombudsman should keep a certain distance
from Wikipedia's "corridors", namely, s/he must not be an administrator
nor bureaucrat, and while s/he should be well acquainted with Wikipedia,
perhaps it would be better if s/he won't edit. Furthermore, it is
crucial that this person be identified by her/his real name and be
reachable in various ways, not only through an e-mail address. It is
also important that this person give a public account on the problems
s/he handled and measures s/he took to solve them. The very existence
of such a report is the guarantee that all complaints be addressed
properly, and in addition it would increase transparency and let us have
a clear picture of the Wikipedian scene.
Dror K
בתאריך 14/03/11 15:18, ציטוט David Gerard:
On 14 March 2011 12:53, Dror
Kamir<dqamir(a)bezeqint.net> wrote:
As a first step, I think it would be useful to
appoint an ombudsman to
Wikipedia, either one to all of them or to each one. We can start with
the English Wikipedia. This ombudsman will be identified by her/his real
name and receive complaints from editors and from people who are
subjects of articles. While this person can use help from other
Wikipedians, it is important that there would be one person who would
lead this work and be known, reachable and responsible to answer every
complaint. The idea that anonymous admins, who act mainly upon their own
personal judgment, can handle every problem, should be cast aside. It is
also important that such ombudsman publish a public report about the
complaints received in a certain period of time and how they were
handled. It is also important that s/he would have the authority to
intervene in the decisions of admins in certain cases, e.g. BLP.
Something like this is how it works now - if stuff gets to the BLP
queue in OTRS, the experienced editors who deal with such things do
descend on said articles, editorial axe in hand. This mechanism has
the general support of the community, the admins and the arbcom.
The main problem I've found is that aggrieved BLP subjects don't
understand that they can actually email info(a)wikimedia.org and have
someone seriously look at the problem.
- d.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l