We get to directly choose procedures and institutions, not outcomes. That's very important to understand. Outcomes are driven by procedures and institutions and sometimes in ways that are unexpected.
I think that we have consensus about the kinds of outcomes that we want. We want procedures and institutions that are encouraging of good behaviors and discouraging of bad behaviors. We want procedures and institutions that prevent the rise of an ideological faction to control the content of the articles in any political/ideological way. We want procedures and institutions that are transparent, open, flexible, reasonable, and which have a minimum of gamesmanship. We want procedures and institutions that are scalable and that don't depend on me as a bottleneck.
The trick is in figuring out what those institutions and procedures should be. This will be a trial and error process.
I think that arbitration is working, but agree with those who point out that it isn't what many of us envisioned as arbitration. It's more of an independent judiciary panel deciding punishments on a case-by-case basis.
I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of a structural error. Too many people aren't taking mediation seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration. The fact that mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably the main issue.
I'm putting a lot of thought into these issues, and listening very carefully and seriously to what everyone is saying. I expect that we will be tweaking the system to a degree to try to alleviate some of the problems we've seen.
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of a structural error. Too many people aren't taking mediation seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration. The fact that mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably the main issue.
Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn by doing". :-)
Stan
It doesn't seem that arbitration is always an option. I'm listed for possible arbitration, but mediation has never been offered.
Anthony
Stan Shebs wrote:
Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn by doing". :-)
Stan
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
It doesn't seem that arbitration is always an option. I'm listed for possible arbitration, but mediation has never been offered.
This is an interesting observation. I say this as a person who avoids following the endless ongoing behaviour disputes disputes. I have no opinion about the truth of the underlying facts of this case.
People often enter disputes with a preconception about outcomes. They draw lines in the sand which after a sandstorm are only visible to them. The long-established user often should be the one to accept greater responsibility in a matter, rather than pursuing an obsession with enforcing those rules that he may have personally helped to establish. The new offender may have an interesting perspective on the issue at hand that was never considered when the rule was originally debated.
Mediation options should be made clear to anybody that seeks arbitration, and a claim such as Anthony has made above should be taken seriously. If it proves factually correct, the matter should be sent back to mediation. If either party refuses mediation, that fact should prominently influence the work of the arbitrators. Yhe success of arbitration will very much depend on the willingness of the arbitrators to dismiss any claim which has not been brought to them through appropriate channels. The test of this will be to apply that policy even when the claimant's case is factually strong.
Ec
No, because what goes on in mediation, good or bad is inadmissable in arbitration. Posturing as "willing to mediate" will do you no good, nor will "piss on that phoney shit" do you any harm. The reason for this is that mediation is about actually trying to solve problems between users, not building a record to bash each other with.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 12:11:28 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory
If either party refuses mediation, that fact should prominently influence the work of the arbitrators.
Fred Bauder wrote:
No, because what goes on in mediation, good or bad is inadmissable in arbitration. Posturing as "willing to mediate" will do you no good, nor will "piss on that phoney shit" do you any harm. The reason for this is that mediation is about actually trying to solve problems between users, not building a record to bash each other with.
Fred
From: Ray Saintonge
If either party refuses mediation, that fact should prominently influence the work of the arbitrators.
If a person has completely refused mediation, there is nothing that goos on "in" mediation to keep confidential. I agree with your dexcription of what mediation is about.
Ec
One of the problems is that we can be really wrong, misunderstand what was happening, mediation gives both parties a change to spend some time looking into the dynamics of the situation without worrying about whether any particular rule was broken, in fact, successful mediation amounts to a pardon for both parties for rule infractions. Go to artibration and chances are rules have been broken, sometimes by both parties. Right now most of the arbitrators aren't really hanging judges, but that will change when someone comes back and back and back to us.
Fred
From: Stan Shebs shebs@apple.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 11:11:25 -0800 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Cc: wikien-l@wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Jimbo's political theory
Once a few people get visibly scr*w*d by arbitration decisions, I think others will be much more interested in mediation. One would imagine the random Wikipedian smart enough to understand that the arbitration committee's powers are considerable, and that they really really want to avoid its clutches, but it seems the more stubborn will have to "learn by doing". :-)
Stan
Fred Bauder wrote:
One of the problems is that we can be really wrong, misunderstand what was happening, mediation gives both parties a change to spend some time looking into the dynamics of the situation without worrying about whether any particular rule was broken, in fact, successful mediation amounts to a pardon for both parties for rule infractions. Go to artibration and chances are rules have been broken, sometimes by both parties. Right now most of the arbitrators aren't really hanging judges, but that will change when someone comes back and back and back to us.
This is a useful observation.
Ec
I'll need to wait to respond to some very good comments here. Wives simply don't understand such important things when they're trying to get us away for the weekend. :-)
Jimmy Wales wrote:
We get to directly choose procedures and institutions, not outcomes. That's very important to understand. Outcomes are driven by procedures and institutions and sometimes in ways that are unexpected.
I think that we have consensus about the kinds of outcomes that we want. We want procedures and institutions that are encouraging of good behaviors and discouraging of bad behaviors. We want procedures and institutions that prevent the rise of an ideological faction to control the content of the articles in any political/ideological way. We want procedures and institutions that are transparent, open, flexible, reasonable, and which have a minimum of gamesmanship. We want procedures and institutions that are scalable and that don't depend on me as a bottleneck.
The trick is in figuring out what those institutions and procedures should be. This will be a trial and error process.
I think that arbitration is working, but agree with those who point out that it isn't what many of us envisioned as arbitration. It's more of an independent judiciary panel deciding punishments on a case-by-case basis.
I think that mediation has mixed success, but not because of the intentions or the people involved, but because we've made something of a structural error. Too many people aren't taking mediation seriously, preferring to go straight to arbitration. The fact that mediators can't really do anything other than talk sweetly is probably the main issue.
I'm putting a lot of thought into these issues, and listening very carefully and seriously to what everyone is saying. I expect that we will be tweaking the system to a degree to try to alleviate some of the problems we've seen.
--Jimbo