I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken. -Stevertigo
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What's wrong with the wiki, for wiki-related things?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:05 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.comwrote:
What's wrong with the wiki, for wiki-related things?
I have not said anything was "wrong with the wiki," only that there should be a mailing list for dealing with dispute resolution. Can you clarify your question a bit?
-Stevertigo
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What's wrong with the wiki, for wiki-related things?
-- Alex (User:Majorly)
Entire revolutions can occur the wiki without coming to a user's attention. A mailing list devoted to dispute resolution would focus attention, even if all it did was point to significant on wiki discussiona. The functionaries list and, presumably the arbitration list already do this. A dispute resolution list would clue everyone in, not just functionaries and arbitrators.
Fred
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.netwrote:
No problem, we might as well take a stab at it. However, my experience here is of deadlock, not resolution. Deadlock characterized by sterile repetition of fixed positions.
Great. One of us should ask the techies to get it set up.
[To Alex] Entire revolutions can occur the wiki without coming to a user's
attention. A mailing list devoted to dispute resolution would focus attention, even if all it did was point to significant on wiki discussions. The functionaries list and, presumably the arbitration list already do this. A dispute resolution list would clue everyone in, not just functionaries and arbitrators.
Indeed. Ostensibly, the list would deal with not just specific dispute resolutions, but with dispute resolution itself - how it works, etc. These concepts haven't changed much since late 2003, and as such there may need to be adjustments - people have ideas I'm sure. And of course, dealing with both specific cases and with general concepts in the same context makes it a bit of an integration issue. And that's another answer for Alex's question - integration based on a particular concept. If the concept was Electric Trains, then of course a separate mailing list wouldn't be justified.
-Stevertigo
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:04 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken. -Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
What's wrong with the wiki, for wiki-related things?
-- Alex (User:Majorly)
on 6/26/09 7:41 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Entire revolutions can occur the wiki without coming to a user's attention. A mailing list devoted to dispute resolution would focus attention, even if all it did was point to significant on wiki discussiona. The functionaries list and, presumably the arbitration list already do this. A dispute resolution list would clue everyone in, not just functionaries and arbitrators.
Fred
The List would need two (at least) Moderators: One that would be very familiar with the technical and policy aspects of the Project; and one that could focus on the interpersonal dialogue itself.
Marc Riddell
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
The List would need two (at least) Moderators: One that would be very familiar with the technical and policy aspects of the Project; and one that could focus on the interpersonal dialogue itself.
I nominate Fred for one. Angela for the other.
-Stevertigo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
The List would need two (at least) Moderators: One that would be very familiar with the technical and policy aspects of the Project; and one that could focus on the interpersonal dialogue itself.
I nominate Fred for one. Angela for the other.
-Stevertigo
Fine, but I don't know who sets up mailing lists.
Fred
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
The List would need two (at least) Moderators: One that would be very familiar with the technical and policy aspects of the Project; and one that could focus on the interpersonal dialogue itself.
I nominate Fred for one. Angela for the other.
-Stevertigo
Fine, but I don't know who sets up mailing lists.
Fred
Contact a server admin on IRC in #wikimedia-tech
Fred
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Contact a server admin on IRC in #wikimedia-tech
I've filed a bug on mediazilla - with a link to this discussion.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
Public dispute resolution happens on wiki, private dispute resolution happens on closed mailing lists. Where is the gap in the market that would be filled by a public dispute resolution mailing list?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Public dispute resolution happens on wiki, private dispute resolution happens on closed mailing lists. Where is the gap in the market that would be filled by a public dispute resolution mailing list?
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has public and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me. Is there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Public dispute resolution happens on wiki, private dispute resolution happens on closed mailing lists. Where is the gap in the market that would be filled by a public dispute resolution mailing list?
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has public and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me. Is there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no reason to change it.
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Public dispute resolution happens on wiki, private dispute resolution happens on closed mailing lists. Where is the gap in the market that would be filled by a public dispute resolution mailing list?
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has public and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me. Is there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no reason to change it.
I did, such matters are regularly discussed on the functionaries and arbitration lists, but sometimes not on any mailing list available to general users. If nothing else, it would be useful to point to significant ongoing controversies.
Fred Bauder
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has
public
and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me.
Is
there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no reason to change it.
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances. :-)
-Stevertigo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has
public
and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of dispute resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to me.
Is
there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is outlined?
I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no reason to change it.
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances. :-)
I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints.
Two, discussion.
Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth...
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM, stevertigostvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has
public
and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of
dispute
resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to
me. Is
there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is
outlined?
I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no reason to change it.
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances. :-)
I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints.
Two, discussion.
Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
I think this is a good refinement of the idea.
Fred
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints.
Two, discussion.
Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth...
I think this is a good refinement of the idea.
I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first though.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints.
Two, discussion.
Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth...
I think this is a good refinement of the idea.
I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first though.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________
Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups and see how many people sign up?
Risker
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups and see how many people sign up?
Risker, from experience, I know what you say to be not true. I remember Brion starting several language mailing lists in about 10 minutes with nothing more than a casual request on intlwiki-l.
Even you and Thomas who have expressed several critical concerns and questions, do not outright state your opposition to such a lists' creation. If you are receiving transmissions that indiate other concerns, please list those concerns along with their sources here, so we can deal with those.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this -
One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute
resolution
(arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real life time constraints.
Two, discussion.
Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I think some people would be more interested in just announcements.
I
would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their bandwidth...
I think this is a good refinement of the idea.
I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first though.
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________
Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups and see how many people sign up?
Risker
It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third party.
Fred
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances. :-)
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" and "fix".
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and
there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
appliances.
:-)
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and
there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
appliances.
:-)
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
-Stevertigo
It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve.
Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to content.
Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to join the mailing list?
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
Just some thoughts.
Risker
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve.
Great comments, Risker.
For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do things because they are experimental or synergistic.
Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss
content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to content.
Excellent point. In a certain way, it seems that there must be some limitation upon what depth content disputes may be discussed on list. In another respect, a certain integration between talk page and list discussion may help to 1) abstract conflicts from being localized to unseen talk pages, and 2) bring abstract general-interest attention to specific talk pages. In reality, this is the way wikien-l used to work, before it got all abstractified and focused exclusively on talking about what newspapers are saying about us.
Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than
current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to join the mailing list?
Indeed, the list should not replace anything else. Rather it should give people an eagle-eye view of disputes, and from this vantage this offers a certain extra dimension to using RFC's, etc.
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what
happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
Very good point. Again, as far as specific conflicts go, it would be more of an announce list. As far as general discussion goes, well this aspect at least to my mind is quite necessary, as general discussion on talk pages is not useful to anyone.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve.
Great comments, Risker.
For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do things because they are experimental or synergistic.
Ok, you may not want to solve a problem, but presumably you want to achieve something. What is your goal?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do
things because they are experimental or synergistic.
Ok, you may not want to solve a problem, but presumably you want to achieve something. What is your goal?
My goal is total and complete synergy.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
My goal is total and complete synergy.
Synergy is when something is greater than the sum of its parts. That is not a goal, it is a means of achieving a goal.
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
and
there
we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
appliances.
:-)
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of
"broke"
and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
-Stevertigo
It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve.
Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to content.
Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to join the mailing list?
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
Just some thoughts.
Risker
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
Fred
2009/6/27 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them?
I don't see Fred's ideas or insights as being particularly in conflict with the idea I proposed. In fact, as I proposed it, I didn't get into any particular details. I simply assumed that if people agreed on the general scope, they could also agree on the scope such a list might have.
Indeed, someone who might be interested in getting help for a particular edit conflict and might want to drop a note to the mailing list might like not getting their head bitten off by someone on this one.
-Stevertigo
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It
would
not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to
it.
That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them?
I don't see Fred's ideas or insights as being particularly in conflict with the idea I proposed. In fact, as I proposed it, I didn't get into any particular details. I simply assumed that if people agreed on the general scope, they could also agree on the scope such a list might have.
Indeed, someone who might be interested in getting help for a particular edit conflict and might want to drop a note to the mailing list might like not getting their head bitten off by someone on this one.
-Stevertigo
Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes.
Fred
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third party.
Well, I took his meaning to be something like "go Google yourself," albeit put in very nice terms.
Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes.
Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome!
-Stevertigo
No, it was not intended that way, Steve. I do know that Brion has a very long job queue, and mailing lists haven't been his top priority for a long time. If the WMF powers that be consider it a priority, then it will move up in his list; if not, then you may be in for quite a wait.
Risker
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third party.
Well, I took his meaning to be something like "go Google yourself," albeit put in very nice terms.
Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes.
Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome!
-Stevertigo _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Riskerrisker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
No, it was not intended that way, Steve. I do know that Brion has a very long job queue, and mailing lists haven't been his top priority for a long time. If the WMF powers that be consider it a priority, then it will move up in his list; if not, then you may be in for quite a wait.
Risker
I believe mailing lists are handled by cary actually, but it doesn't matter if anyone doesn't have time because you just log it in bugzilla and when someone has time they will do it.
2009/6/27 Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net:
It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.
That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them?
I think one goal might be to provide a menu which empowered people to both avoid drama and engage in substantive conversations of interest.
Fred
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
AGK
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
A mailing list need not have a specific goal (and indeed it rarely does); rather, it is simply a forum for discussion of a given topic - which is often quite loosely defined. Consider this: which problem is WikiEN-l trying to solve? It's not; the list exists simply as a place for collaboration and discussion that would not be handled as well on-wiki. As a rule of thumb, I prefer on-wiki discussions for consensus-building, but I *do* think this list is a good idea - if for no other reason but to see how well it works.
On another note: to safeguard against having this list sit uselessly if we end up discovering we don't want to use it, we could agree to consider in, say, three months whether the list ought to be closed down or not. We already have quite enough lists that are barely (or not) used.
AGK
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
Fred
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process of dispute resolution?
Marc
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process of dispute resolution?
Marc
In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
Fred
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred?
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list.
I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred?
-Stevertigo
It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't be possible, sorry.
Risker
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.netwrote:
on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process of dispute resolution?
I has already been stated twice or thrice in this thread that general discussion of "dispute resolution" itself would be within the scope of the "dispute resolution" mailing list. Several have voiced support for the use of this list for any range of legitimate dispute resolution issues --large and small. AGK gave a very straightforward rebuttal to the idea that a list need be confined in accord to narrow frameworks.
In any case it does not make too much sense to prejudice a concept with loaded questions about its scope before it has even been tested in the field.
-Stevertigo
Fred Bauder wrote:
AGK wrote:
Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list?
My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list.
No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here?
Charles
The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership.
I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list. Such as BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters, or overview of current activity (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout.
In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.
Charles
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list. Such as BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters, or overview of current activity (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout.
In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly.
In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an authority over disputes to make the lower tiers of dispute resolution correct --such that they be actually usable and that people will innately know how to "use them.. correctly." It is the *customer that is always right, Charles. Not the vendor.
CM: "Blind men and an elephant.. different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list" - This is exactly how mailing list technology works.
CM: "You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation?"
AGF and NOT generally answer these as well. But again, as with other stated concerns, I do not see what value there is in being afraid of what may be said by someone. People are intelligent enough to deal with whatever comes up, and no amount of pre-programming is going to substitute for intelligence.
CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout."
Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and modernistic knockabout?
-Stevertigo
stevertigo wrote:
CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout."
Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and modernistic knockabout?
Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the right, and bring the business to a halt.
I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years of ArbCom mail. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will give good results, given the nature of lists.
Charles
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com> wrote:
Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the right, and bring the business to a halt.
I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years of ArbCom mail. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will give good results, given the nature of lists.
Technically speaking, I was being a bit ironic in referring to mailing lists as "technology [that works]." Maybe my irony was too subtle.
Solzhenitsyn. Consider that with each new context, the same ideas will be reanimated to see if they actually work in the new context, even while they failed in the old.
I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then), as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and.. well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less conducive to the things which make beings happy.
-Stevertigo
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then),
as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and.. well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less conducive to the things which make beings happy.
Heh. I forgot to mention "light." Anyway, I've emailed CBass about starting up the new list.
-Stevertigo
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and there we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than appliances.
That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" and "fix".
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those.
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't explained how your system would be better than the current one (which is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR).
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
2009/6/27 stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com:
Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those.
My arguments tend to be more rational than "logical."
Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every
edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was
5.7
years ago. You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a "convention" is not a "system."
I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't explained how your system would be better than the current one (which is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR).
Not all "conflicts" rise to the level of "wars." So not all edit conflicts are "edit wars." The latter term has implications that transcend most "conflicts between editors" or "editorial conflicts."
The technical usage of "edit conflict" to mean a state wherein a session has been interrupted by changes by another user, in a certain way usurps the canonical (common English) usage of the word "conflict" for a technical purpose. And even in technical context, its a bit of an outdated misnomer:
* Outdated, because since section editing was implemented five years ago, they rarely happen. * Misnomer, because those "conflicts" are technical and not "edit"-orial, and anyway are not so much "conflicts" as they are "interrupts." (Note that other wiki software have these handled via simple usage of session lockouts. Not to say that such would work for us, though).
If its got a simple technical solution, its probably not the "conflict" we are talking about. This should correct not just your terminology, but our general conventional misuse which I too once or twice have been a party to. Its been a while since Ive had an "edit interrupt" myself. Edit conflicts (not "wars") however occur hourly. :-)
-Stevertigo
I think its time we had a mailing list set up explicitly for all dispute resolution issues. I mean wikien doesn't deal with these anymore, Arbcom and Medcom lists are closed-source, and* its been almost six years since the "formal process for handling disputes" got started in the first place (Oct 2 2003*).
I have spoken. -Stevertigo
No problem, we might as well take a stab at it. However, my experience here is of deadlock, not resolution. Deadlock characterized by sterile repetition of fixed positions.
Fred