MacGynerMagic wrote ...
>Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing
>without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take
>the case because of conduct.
But there are indeed cases where people keep editing while discussing it ad
infinitum, and discussions may take up over 100 kbs, and still the dispute
is not resolved. These are disputes where it is simply not enough to judge
behavior; we need to judge the content.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and an on-line community
second. Personal behavior is very important and it is good that we have
mechanisms to deal with conflicts over user conduct. But content is more
important, and we need mechanisms to deal with conflicts over content.
sannse wrote...
>I have mixed feelings on all this - I see that there are problems, but
>am not fully convinced that the majority of them won't be fixed with a
>little time and a little faith in the good will of editors. I'm not
>saying we ignore things until they go away, just that a proactive
>solution may give disputes an emphasis that might be harmful - maybe
>without intervention the eventualist approach will work in a lot of cases.
>
>
>But that said, I realise we are in a whole new situation with the
>growing Wikipedia, and maybe what worked a year ago won't do so
>nowadays. And content does seem to be the key issue in many disputes
>that we have looked at recently.
I agree completely. I do think most disputes can be and are resolved
through time and good faith. But the fact remains that some disputes over
content do not get resolved. In my experience (biased, I acknowledge) this
is usually because the two people have different ideas about what
constitutes research or appropriate sources. NPOV and NOR may enter into
it, and in some cases these policies alone are sufficient to resolve the
case -- but in some cases, they are not. In such cases, someone needs to
determine what kind of research has been done, what kinds of sources are
being used, and decide on that basis. This is the kind of thing ArbCom has
traditionally stayed away from. At one point (around the time of my
conflict with RJII), some suggested that ArbCom can deal with content
disputes -- but,ultimately, they did not.
We need either a firm commitment that ArbCom will deal with content
disputes, pure and simple, or we need another mechanism.
Steve
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701