-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
charles matthews wrote:
"J.F. de Wolff" wrote
And the dispute resolution process is not geared for dealing with it.
The fact that dispute resolution has no 'remedy' in the case of POV pushers who are well-behaved, or even just contrite and flexible, is a 'known problem' for WP. We have ducked, really, the idea of resolution of content disputes, rather than behavioural issues.
The Committee has found people to be intransigent POV warriors without them behaving in specifically "bad" ways, IIRC.
That, one can say, is one of the wiki aspects that gives Wikipedia its character. Edit wars have to find their own resolution.
That's one way of looking at it, I suppose. :-)
I have thought for a while that the ArbCom ought to look into POV pushing. I don't know what the solution is, though. Some system of public cautions, without other sanctions, for example. Of course there are many thousands of POV-pushing editors, and it is not clear what impact can be made.
Hmm. I for one (and I'm sure that I'm not alone) am very wary of the Committee getting stuck in to content disputes. It would impinge on the editing process unduly, and would probably end up with us making Bad Decisions(tm).
A community-based system might be a better idea, yes, but runs the risk of being hijacked by one, both, or all n-teen parties as a bitch-fest against one another. C.f., erm, every other "community" process, in places at least.
Yours, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james@jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester@hotmail.com