Alex756 wrote in part:
Eclecticology wrote:
>Yes, and that reflection goes farther than
Wikipedia. We've lost the
>skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the
>reaction that we might get from a direct approach. It's much easier to
>surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small
>claims court.
But then they quickly learn that going to court is
rarely a quick
fix, there are a million and one rules, the police often refused to intervene
in civil disputes and even if they get a judgment against their neighbor
it may be difficult to enforce it. If they are intelligent (and know a
lawyer who is not just out to create disputes and billable hours)
they find out quickly that it is much more effective (and cost
efficient) to find a resolution mechanism that can help deal
with the problems and minimizes animosity in the process.
This is not surprising.
I agree with Ec that «Call the authorities!» can be seductive,
without disagreeing with you that it can also be ineffective.
Quite frankly I think most serious people do try to
discuss their problems
and do try and find an amicable approach before turning to some "official
power" this is what was behind my points about mediation, it is not
some "appeal to officiated power" it is a sincere attempt (without legal
procedure) to resolve differences, not creating all kinds of rules, roles
and rhetoric.
Right; the difference between mediation (people talking together)
and arbitration (an authority imposing a difference) is huge!
Some of this talk about "rights" should be
tempered with the
recognition that what is being discussed may be a "privilege" or
an "obligation" that has been violated. The aphorism we often
hear from HR professors is: "Freedom of the press is freedom
to own the press" not freedom to tell the owners of the press
what to do. Anyone has the right to start their own press, their
own wiki or even their own encyclopedia, not to impose their
ideas or opinions on others, but to put it out there on their own
into the "marketplace of ideas". It is perfectly reasonable for
Wikipedia to have limits on all sorts of kinds of behaviours.
Wikipedia can have any limits on behaviour here whatsoever,
in the sense that it would not interfere with societal "rights".
Whether such limits are a good idea is, of course, another matter;
sometimes they will be, and sometimes they won't be.
-- Toby