Common sense is always good as is paying attention to peoples expectations
as they try to figure out (pretty complicated these days) what is expected
by the the community. We should always consider how situations feel to our
users and never simply mechanically apply rules.
Fred
> Reply-To: martin(a)myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration(a)nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
> * Our common sense and judgement.
> * Some or all of the [[Wikipedia:policies and guidelines]]
> * The [[Wikipedia:Submission Standards]]
> * Community consensus
> * Jimbo's opinion
> * Morality/ethics
> * ...
>
> There are no doubt many more. There's also the option of going with a similar
> approach to the way we handled Jurisdiction and starting off with a minimal
> set that
> we can interpret flexibly and nail down (if necessary) later.
>
> So, opinions?
>
> -Martin
As disputes arise, and are decided, we, as participants, can learn the
consequences. Likewise we can observe the consequences of Jimbo's decisons
as well as what happens when various actions are taken by the community at
large. We can consider those consequences and refine our response and make
an appropriate response to the situation before us. It is not like a court
making decisions which affect property rights or business investments where
citizens need to have a reliable guide to action.
If we try to follow precedent we will make bad decisions in order to avoid
seting a precedent and then make bad decisions because we have to follow
precedent.
Fred
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin(a)myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration(a)nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce - on what
> basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
>
> * Precedent based on our own decisions
> * Precedent based on Jimbo's decisions
> * Precedent based on community group actions (VfD, et al)
Very good idea because custom expresses in a concrete way the practical
needs and desires of our users.
Fred
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin(a)myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration(a)nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> Next on the agenda is "Rules": what rules are we going to enforce
> - on what basis
> will people be found guilty. Some possibilities (brainstorming, really):
> * Common practice on Wikipedia
Now that Jimbo has weighed in on the negative side of this matter it is
senseless to continue the discussion even later. Rather than consider
content we will need to consider the behavior of users as it relates to
content.
Fred
> From: "Martin Harper" <martin(a)myreddice.freeserve.co.uk>
> Reply-To: martin(a)myreddice.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 21:38:37 -0000
> To: arbitration(a)nerstrand.net
> Subject: Next on the agenda - "Rules"
>
> I think we can leave the "article dispute" issue raging and come back to it.
> For
> example, some people have expressed a fear that we will end up dictating parts
> of
> an article - if we reject that option during our discussion of "Solutions",
> then they
> may feel differently. So, boldly onwards.
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:16:55 UTC, Sean Barrett
<sean(a)epoptic.org> wrote:
> > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your
> > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
>
> You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
> have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As
> an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
> step down, I will.
>
> > The only argument you have given
> > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
>
> I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
> arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
> think I should.
> ...
I assume that the arbitration process, like any other that I can think of,
will allow some choice to the arbitrees in the selection of arbitrators.
This raises an interesting question: the built-in advantage of people who
have participated in Wikipedia for a while over the newcomer. The former
are likely to know something of the arbitrators, and can protect their
interests by making better-informed judgments.
It would be only fair, though I suppose it would be impractical, to create
profiles of the arbitrators. Then a newbie would know what positions the
various people have taken on the subject of arbitration, and would not
make the mistake of accepting someone who simply refuses to enforce some
published policy of Wikipedia because he doesn't feel like it and nobody
can make him. Just fpr example.
Hi, Olivier I am happy to help you although a better place to ask the question is either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk on Wikipedia
or http://wikibooks.org/wiki/Study_help_desk on Wikibooks.
But just this once - The ocean current is called the North Atlantic Drift. It is a continuation of the Gulf stream which is a huge current of warm water that flows from the gulf of Mexico up to Europe. It warms the whole of Europe by several degrees, which is why here in the UK we have a temperate climate rather than an arctic one. (get hold of an atlas and follow the lines of latitude round, note which other countries are on the same latitude as us and check out their climate).
The current sinks in several places north of Iceland because it is very salty (and therefore dense). It then returns back to Mexico in a deep water current called the North Atlantic deep water. The whole system forms a huge convection current, which pumps heat from the equator to northern Europe.
There is evidence that in the past this system has shut down. There is some speculation that global warming melting the ice caps may dilute the saltyness of the current and so prevent it from sinking. If this happens there will be a massive cooling of the UK and the whole of Northern Europe.
Theresa
-----Original Message-----
From: Olivia [mailto:OLIVIABUTTON12@hotmail.com]
Sent: 25 January 2004 19:40
To: wikien-l(a)wikipedia.org
Subject: [WikiEN-l] question about the atlantic ocean
hi, i need help on my geography homework, i was wondering if you could help?
''what is the name of the ocean current in the atlantic to the west of the uk? and how does it affect our climate?
thank-you!
olivia
p.s please email me back on: oliviabutton12(a)hotmail.com
Both Catholics and Unificationists believe in the devil and other evil
spirits as Real Beings (see [[Exorcism]]).
Of course, this is in the context of a whole bunch of other
non-atheistic beliefs; it's not as nutty as it sounds.
(Did I just say "non-atheistic"? I meant, "religious" ;-)
Ed Poor
Hi,
There's been some talk about the use of citations as sources and evidence. I
think we are treading on very thin ice here. For example, I am not a big fan
of George W. Bush. I even have two books, "The Bush Dyslexicon" by Mark Crispin
Miller and "The Lies of George W. Bush" by David Corn, which lambast him
based entirely on his quotations. While I happen to like the books, I would hardly
base an article on them--if I did, I would be attacked for bias and POV, even
though all of the quotations are well documented. We have to be very careful
here.
Danny
----- Original Message -----
From: Geoff Burling <llywrch(a)agora.rdrop.com>
Date: Monday, January 26, 2004 1:45 am
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Catholic Encyclopedia
> Sad to say, but this is the least of the problems I have
> encountered with
> the CE. At one point, when researching the Controversy of the
> Three Chapters
> (one of the many twists & turns of the dispute over the nature of
> Christ),I found that the CE actually lied about its effects in the
> West. Its
> account of the resulting schism in Northern Italy clearly made it
> seem as
> if the dispute was resolved within a life time, when I knew from other
> accounts that it persisted for about 150 years.
Uh, if this is the same CE that can be found online, it may be helpful to note that that edition is from 1911.
Why use something from 1911?
John
If the name alone was the problem, we do have an established
procedure for involuntary name changes: it's a developer judgement
call based on community consensus. Anyone remember Drolsi
Susej or TMC or SH?
Naturally, the arbitration committee will be usurping the power to
judge the appropriateness of Wikipedia usernames and using it to
take over ze world! Or not.
-Martin