[WikiEN-l] Civility poll results

[Surreptitiousness]

Charles Matthews wrote:
> Surreptitiousness wrote:
>   
>> Thinking of teh community as a "community", it suddenly makes me realise 
>> I have no idea who the "community leaders" are.
>>     
> <snip>
>   
>> The episodes and characters arbitration cases 
>> were instances crying out for facilitation, not arbitration, and the 
>> arbitration that resulted really solved nothing anyway.
>>   
>>     
> It's not necessarily going to be helpful to import a lot of jargon into 
> the discussion; but I note that a great deal of current debate can be 
> summed up, not unfairly, as "the English Wikipedia faces an 'adaptive 
> challenge' or three, and blaming the ArbCom has become a 'work avoidance 
> mechanism'".
>   
That's certainly one way of looking at it.  Another way of looking at it 
is that it's impossible to get the work done because nobody currently 
agrees on what the work that needs to be done actually is.  It's rather 
hard to work if all your work is reverted, and given that there is 
dispute, how do we solve that dispute?  You know, when you look at it, 
our dispute resolution process doesn't actually work for content 
disputes, because there is no last resort for content disputes. I'm not 
actually blaming the arbitration committee so much as I'm trying to work 
out a solution for the problems I perceive, hence me going on to talk 
about facilitators. I can't work out if you snipped that because you 
felt it was too much jargon. I don't really see any value in reducing 
the debate to pointing fingers.  Isn't it better to at least have a stab 
at brainstorming solutions, and where people don't understand some of 
the language used or perceive it as jargon, try to work towards better 
understanding?