Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
NOTE: I AM CROSSPOSTING THIS TO THE WIKILEGAL LIST, SO PLEASE EDIT THE LISTS LINE TO THE APPROPRIATE RECIPIENTS.
I think I am misunderstanding what you mean here...
what is the list line ?
(gee, I am *sure* I am making a mistake)
On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 10:56, A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:
<<I am requesting arbitration at [[DNA]]. I have attempted to submit that DNA is a form of [[nucleic acid]]. [[User:Peak]] (working in conjunction with an anon IP) has made it clear to me that he thinks I am a vandal (thus, mediation is not appropriate; since, discussion is impossible).>>
Respectfully, I think in this situation, discussion is imperative. By speech and action, you should make it clear that Peak and his (putative) anonymous friend are incorrect in their characterisation of you. (more about the possible role of mediation below)<<I request that the arbitration committee determine whether, or not, DNA is a nucleic acid.>>
It is unclear whether we are going to allow either the mediation or the arbitration process stray into making determinations on questions of fact (personally I think it would be a serious over-reach of authority and compounding of "hats" which might cause severe difficulties to the credibility of either process). If that is decided to be outside our remit, perhaps the best you could hope for is that a mediator would try to get Peek and/or the anonymous editor to confront your views, and try to help all parties to find some useful mode to discuss the matter between each other, either within the mediation process or subsequent to it, without taking a position in any way, other than to the effect that discussion should take place and perhaps suggesting intermediary discussion points which might help to chart where the heart of the disagreement lies. Respectfully, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro), MEMBER OF THE MEDIATION COMMITTEE
Boy, did you sound serious there...
P.S. I hate to keep on harping on this matter, but there is a possibility that a method for resolving questions of fact may be needed down the line. The ideal method for this is neither arbitration nor mediation, but rather "expert determination". This has already been excercised informally in the Florentin Smarandache and Neutrosophy case, when a professor from outside Wikipedia was "enticed" to "fix" the problem.
Once we get more and more public exposure, it may well turn out that on specific tightly defined questions of fact, we may be able to get even notable experts to accept commissions to sort things out, in a context of both/all sides of the conflict accepting beforehand the expert enlisted makes the final call. There are attendant possibilities here, for generating publicity for both Wikipedia and/or the expert who accepts the commission (and we may even get a new convert from the highest reaches of the particular field :-).
hummmm, perhaps. Yeah, why not.
But...let's say...if it is a purely factual point, expertise is nice. But usually, most conflicts are not exactly on purely factual points. More on some that involves interpretation. And...being an expert is no guarantee of neutrality rather far from that in fact :-)
Say...if we call for help upon an expert...I would say it is ok if this expert succeeds to *convince* us of the proper answer to the issue, provided that he gives us appropriate references. Ìt is ok that he convinces us. It is not ok that he just tell us "this is the good answer".
I mean...if we call help upon a "great" expert, that we agree on that expert, that this expert is indeed biaised in his answer, and makes a final call upon which someone disagree, how are we gonna get out of that ? and tell the guy from whom we requested help that "no, it is not acceptable".
In short, I think a respectable number of us know an expert, who is just as experts as us on a topic, but with whom we disagree. I do not think it would be fair in the slightest that on wikipedia this expert vision is considered the right one, just because he was requested as an expert, if in the real world we fairly disagree.
the idea is seducing, but dangerous :-)