On 12/3/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
A) The current archive is going to be an unsortable
mix of necessarily
confidential information and indiscreet commentary. Since it cannot be
sorted, and we can neither give public access nor (it seems) guarantee
confidentiality - it should be deleted. It is unacceptable that there
may be information about me (or Giano or !!) in there, which the subject
cannot see or answer, and yet almost certainly can be (will be, and has
been) leaked to others. It would be also unfair to open the archive
retrospectively as even indiscreet comments were made with an
expectation of confidentiality.
Purely by the by, personally I am willing to entertain the conceit that there
may be fora or sites that speak of me in less than flattering tones, but
which I will never have the opportunity address for purposes of clarification
or rebuttal, not even merely due to their secrecy/privacy/obscurity, but
solely by virtue (or otherwise) of them being sites that I would *choose* to
not to frequent.
It is more than conceivable that in consequence I will suffer some false
or at the least misleading characterisations of myself spreading and
taking root in the mind of not merely the mischevious but of the gullible.
To me this is not unacceptable at all. YMMV, but nobody promised me a
rose garden when I began to edit wikipedia, nor even at the stage when
I began to get more deeply involved in the machinations of it. (I wasn't even
promised a shrubbery.)
B) Arcom should have closed but public mailing list
for discussing
cases. I.E. only posts from arbs (or occasionally passed through
moderators) would be allowed - but anyone can read the list or archive.
This would prevent chatter about individuals behind their back. If Arbs
really feel the need to discuss a user in private, they can use IRC or
private e-mail where at least there are no archives to be read years
from now.
I doubt there is much usefulness to be gained from such public lists
that are not currently served by the on-wiki pages such as the /workshop
subpage. If such were needed, just add a new protected page in the mix.
C) Arbcom should also have a closed mailing list. But
it should only be
used for information covered by the privacy policy - and strictly
neccessary commentary. Even here I'd like 1. someone to have oversight
- to ensure no gossip and check only strictly necessary discussion 2. a
right for a user to ask for any information about them to be disclosed
to them. 3. The archives of this list should not be kept indefinitely -
perhaps 12-24 months only.
The argument has been made repeatedly, and I think correctly, that
arbs (and for that matter all simians), need comfort zones where they
need not watch every step they make, every gesture and word tossed
out in the emotion of the moment. Cohesion is an innate feature of the
way humans structure social groups, and that is greatly facilitated by
trust which can only be engendered by "exposing" ones real true self
to the group, without fear of being rejected for it, or paying a price for it.
There can be an argument made that the arbcom membership is now
evolving to the stage where they are by virtue of their membership
becoming public persona, and as such afforded less protection of their
privacy. I reject the argument, but it can be made. The best guarantee
of accountability, in my view, _at this stage_, is to make sure we *elect*
people who we know wouldn't act disgracefully within chambers.
The current situation is untenable, unfair, and
destroying the
community's trust. It's also unfair on arbitors who have no means to
defend themselves when accused of mishandling information. It confuses
the necessary need for privacy, with a desire to chatter with impunity.
--
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]