On 10/26/05, Michael Turley <michael.turley(a)gmail.com> wrote:
What I still don't understand is why you propose a
very large pool of
magistrates instead of a very large pool of arbitrators.
Because then you end up with no coherency in final decisions (unless
we punt and let Jimbo make all the real final decisions, which I don't
think anybody wants, least of all Jimbo). You want your final court
of appeal to consist of the same judges on most cases, or you will get
random, inconsistent justice depending entirely on the composition of
the panel. Having the same panel hear all final appeals helps to
obtain consistency.
I am opposed to using randomly selected panels to hear final appeals.
Randomly selected panels for initial hearings are fine.
Choosing any two trusted Wikipedia members, I have yet
to see any
trusted pair of Wikipedia members where one is so much more qualified
than another at dispute resolution that they should serve in an appeal
body over the other.
I would say that there are DEFINITELY large degrees of difference in
the qualifications of "trusted" members of Wikipedia, if by "trusted"
you mean those we've seen fit to grant administrative rights to. I
can think of a half dozen admins off the top of my head who are wholly
unfit to attempt to resolve disputes. (No, I will not name names.)
Kelly