This concerns the exchanges between SlimVirgin and others on policing POV
and the quality of sources.
It seems that most people, including Jimbo, are committed to the quasi
anarchic aspect of Wikipedia in which a large community of diverse editors
are always available to edit or comment on controversial articles. I share
this commitment and agree that when editors come into conflict over content
or sources, the first thing to do is to invite others to look and comment,
and to give this process time so that as many people who might want to
comment as possible, do.
But we all recognize that sometimes these informal processes are not
sufficient, which is why we have mediation and arbitration mechanisms.
I think SlimVirgin is calling attention to another situation where these
informal processes are not sufficient, but I don't think that our mediation
or arbitration mechanisms as currently conceived are of help. I have two
points I'd like to make.
If I understand her correctly, SlimVirgin is pointing out that in some
cases concerning content, one must have special knowledge in order to
identify and evaluate bias (or POV), and to evaluate the quality of
sources. This is especially important when there is division over the
repute of sources. Our "official policy" of "cite sources" explains that
claims should come from reputable sources, but there is not clear standard
of what a reputable source is -- nor do I think we can come up with one,
clear, inclusive explanation, it varies so much from field to field. In
some cases, our normal procedures work fine (I am thinking specifically of
a fellow a couple of years ago who thought he had proven Einstein wrong;
enough folks here know enough about physics and the world of physicists
that over time it was clear that there was an informed consensus to revert
what this fellow had been adding. In other cases, however, this does not
happen. There may be different reasons why -- my sense is that even now
there are far more people who regularly contribute to Wikipedia who know a
lot about computers, than about ancient Near Eastern history. Also, I (as
an outsider to this world) get the sense that there are lots of people who
really are quite expert in matters concerning computers, even if they do
not have PhD's in computer science and don't teach in Universities. But
there may be some topics where the gulf in knowledge and understanding
between experts and laypeople is immense.
My first point is that the standard (and in my opinion ideal) process for
dealing with edit-conflicts is biased to work very well in some areas, and
less well in others. In areas where there are very few editors
knowledgeable enough to evaluate accuracy and the reputation of sources, we
often end up with edit wars that go in circles for weeks if not months.
My second point is that we don't really have a good mechanism for resolving
conflict in these cases. I have a high regard for our mediation and
arbitration processes, but in my experience mediators and arbitrators
usually focus on violation of behavioral guidelines. We do not have a
comparable mechanism for dealing with violations of content guidelines. On
the guidelines and policies page we do distinguish between behavioral and
content guidelines, and there are a variety of policies in each
category. But we have institutional recourse for one category, and not the
other.
I think we should either expand the brief of the mediation and arbitration
committees to enforce content guidelines or, if those committees prefer
having a more limited brief, form some other clear process to resolve
conflicts over content and enforce content policies.
I believe very strongly that any mechanism we come up with should be a last
resort. I believe it should be employed only when it is clear that the
ordinary anarchic way of dealing with such problems is not, even given
considerable time, working. But I do think we need some mechanism.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701