I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is the entire premise.
I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my
horror, it noted:
"The community is interested in process not content".
This is madness. - Randall Brackett
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._
(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury nullification and rogue judges...)
G'day Daniel S,
I think the problem with DRV and other processes that reivew
content is the entire premise.
I reviewed a backlog previously to discover a template. To my
horror, it noted:
"The community is interested in process not content".
This is madness. - Randall Brackett
I am most definitely not a lawyer, but I think it's exactly the same distinction as the distinction between a _trial_ and an _appeal._
No. Well, yes. But no.
DRV has been legitimately accused of endorsing bad decisions on that grounds that "process was followed". The people arguing that DRV should do such a thing are either:
a) Process wonks, who can therefore be ignored (or, preferably, locked in a padded cell for their own comfort and safety) b) People who have confused Wikipedia with Real Life.
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else, do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*. That's all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the right *process*. Process being followed is a good indication that the AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
(And in the legal world there are also phenomena such as jury nullification and rogue judges...)
We have them on Wikipedia, too. Witness the Jack Thompson OFFICE action and certain admins.
On 7/6/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
No. Well, yes. But no.
DRV has been legitimately accused of endorsing bad decisions on that grounds that "process was followed". The people arguing that DRV should do such a thing are either:
a) Process wonks, who can therefore be ignored (or, preferably, locked in a padded cell for their own comfort and safety) b) People who have confused Wikipedia with Real Life.
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else, do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*. That's all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the right *process*. Process being followed is a good indication that the AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
An argument that fails when you consider you only need an absolute majority to keep something deleted on DRV. If it is to be more than a process review area then that is illogical.
G'day geni,
On 7/6/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
DRV is a safeguard to ensure that AfD gets the right *result*. That's all it's for --- *not*, I repeat *not*, simply to ensure AfD gets the right *process*. Process being followed is a good indication that the AfD result was good; but it shouldn't blind us to potential errors.
An argument that fails when you consider you only need an absolute majority to keep something deleted on DRV. If it is to be more than a process review area then that is illogical.
I'll admit, it relies on people not abusing it. But then, so does a lot of Wikipedia.
On 7/6/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
An argument that fails when you consider you only need an absolute majority to keep something deleted on DRV. If it is to be more than a process review area then that is illogical.
I've seen DRV overturn deletion in cases where new evidence came to light; and a couple of times, even, cases when no new evidence came up but more users got involved and the deletion was overturned.
It's perhaps not the /best/ system, but it does on occasion at least do more than simply check if process was properly applied.
-Matt
On 7/6/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
DRV is *not* an appeals court. The rules that apply to appeals courts in the USA, Canada, Australia, and I assume practically everywhere else, do *not* apply to DRV. We need to remember that. DRV is not, it's true, in the business of providing a venue for AfD Take Two, but neither is it totally uninterested in the outcome provided process is followed.
I think the analogy is a valid one. Appeals courts (mostly) are very very reluctant to overturn findings of fact made by lower or trial courts, and instead are interested on points of law. DRV is most of the time interested in whether "process" was followed, and is not usually in the business of questioning the judgment on the evidence of people who participated in the original *fD.
Of course, DRV is generally more open to reconsidering the result when there is new evidence (uncovering more sources establishing notability, etc) which wasn't available to the original *fD. In these situations it can choose to relist, or endorse/overturn the *fD right away. Again this is fairly consistent with the analogy of an appeals court, which can order a retrial or endorse/overturn the verdict.
Of course, I'm not saying that this is necessarily a good thing, but I do think that the comparison holds.
So I suppose the question when considering potential reform for DRV is how to strike a balance between the current process-only focus, and the other extreme, "AfD Take Two", as you put it Mark. How to achieve the ability to overturn Bad Decisions while retaining a balance between these extremes?