Delerium wrote,
>The current hope is that the community can deal with this, if people who
>behave badly are taken out of the system. That is, the community will
>spot and remove original research, and if someone keeps readding it
>despite a consensus that it should be removed, the person will
>eventually be banned.
I understand this. And, as I hope I have made very clear, I do believe
that the unregulated community must and can be the first, and major, way of
dealing with such problems.
Two big buts (and, as we all know, everyone has big buts):
First, many other people have pointed out that the way that the community
deals with such issues often escalates to a point where vigilant members of
the community violate personal behavior rules in the process of trying to
control an editor who is damaging the content of an article. I am not
excusing violation of personal behavior rules, I am just making what I
think is a factual observation. Since the only official dispute-resolution
mechanism we currently have is concerned exclusively with behavioral
violations, and not content, vigilant members of the community are punished
along with those damaging content. As many have pointed out, the 3RR
actually favors editors who damage content, against vigilant members. I am
NOT saying that the ArbCom should stop dealing with violations of behavior
policies. I Am saying that this situation calls for a second
mechanism. (I share Mav's concern about extending the ArbCom's powers -- I
think that such a second mechanism should involve a second committee.
Second, let's remember that there was a time when we similarly expected the
"community" to deal with all problems, including personal conflicts
involving violations of behavioral policies. Mediation and ArbCom
developed as we realized that the anarchic community processes simply were
not sufficient. I think it is clear now that anarchic community processes
are not always sufficient to deal with violations of content policies.
Believe me, I sometimes miss the days when there was no formal mechanism
for dealing with problems, and editors just had to argue it out -- even
vituperatively! -- until someone gave up. This is why I still think that
the community should try to resolve all disputes, concerning content and
behavioral policies. But I understand the need for the ArbCom -- as
Wikipedia grows, and becomes even more heterogeneous, I don't see an
alternative. But similarly, as Wikipedia grows, I think we now need a
second committee. Two committees to handle different kinds of disputes may
seem like a lot compared to the old days. But really, I don't think two
committees is too much.
>I'd be open to a committee policing for original research at some point,
>if that turns out to be necessary. Policing for NPOV is a lot more
>complicated.
As long as it is seen as a dispute resolving mechanism, rather than as
police, I think it would work for both (indeed, one of the problems with
the ArbCom right now is that it is both dispute-resolving, and
police. Maybe we need both functions, but they call for different
mechanisms -- a dispute-resolution process does require, as Fred has
insisted, that the committee look at the behavior of "both" parties. But
this is possible only because there are two or more parties. I think the
policing function requires a committee that can talk to users who violate
policies even when no one has filed a formal complaint).
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701