Mark wrote about:
"POV pushers who don't actually violate any of our rules, or even good contributors who are very biased and very motivated on one particular issue, are a major problem. The neutral arbiters tend to be people without a personal stake in the subject, and it's hard for any of them to match the time commitment and passion that the POV pushers bring to the editing process."
He's right as usual: Highly motivated, biased contributors are the problem. (Sometimes I have been in this group -- sorry!)
The key point bears repeating:
* The neutral arbiters tend to be people without a personal stake in the subject.
That's why, so many times, I've been able to mediate certain conflicts. I really didn't care one way or another -- whether out of ignorance, or whatever -- what the article SAID; I just wanted to get both sides to be able to come to a mutually satisfying agreement.
Every mediation I've taken on has succeeded. My unbroken record of success comes, however, not from talent or wisdom or "mysterious occult powers", but from regarding one simple principle that Mark pointed out. You can't mediate if you have an "interest" in the outcome. You must be what judges and lawyers call a "disinterested" party. (not 'uninterested', which means you're bored by it!)
Gary D. (at [[Prem Rawat]]) and many others have done the same -- and usually much more smoothly and politely than me, of course!
We need mediators who can stand ABOVE the controversy and dispassionately describe all the reported facts, and all the advocated points of view. That means I can't help [[global warming]] or [[asbestos abatement]] or the use of [[DDT]] in preventing malaria. (Like, I won't go to a dinner party if I know Molly has been invited, because she always brings up gun control and we always have a big, disruptive debate about this: no matter how many times I promise my wife that I'll be "calm, fair, decent", etc. If I can't control myself in that situation, I just have to stay out of that situation.)
Okay, now, we all agree on the problem. But what is the solution?
Issue #1: Can we mark an article version as a sort of milestone? Shall we give users and search engines the milestone version as a default? Or at least as an opt-in preference?
Issue #2: Can we exclude certain users from editing certain articles? (How about starting on a small scale as an experiment: let admins "ban" NON-SIGNED-IN contributors, i.e., IP's, on a per-article basis -- and see how this works out. The [[Prem Rawat]] series would benefit.)
The wikiwiki idea is brilliant, and my hat's off to man who invented it. But any invention can be improved upon. I call upon Geoffrey, Mav, Fred, Rebecca, Elian, Jay, Mark, Erik and the whole gang:
Let's put our heads together and come up with an idea. Then let's try it out. If it doesn't work, we can try something else.
Ed Poor