This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat them around the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it, then gently suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's sometimes more work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the idjit is cluifiable at all.
Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
Peter (Skyring)
Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul. It's slipped down to relativism:
We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both parties considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy standards (or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial Topic), while the other insists on being uncivil, adding inaccurate information, or using the article to push their point of view (POV)
THEN
* it's not a matter of two people "disputing" * it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other party being "wrong"
Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce civility and accuracy as key values of our community - and stamp out bias too!
Ed Poor
On 11/28/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
- it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
- it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other party being
"wrong"
I disagree. It's a matter of two people disputing. One of them may be disputing in a manner we approve of and the other disputing in a manner we do not. The purpose of dispute resolution is not to Find What Is Right, but rather to enable the disputants to come to an agreement without tearing each other's heads off.
Kelly
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/28/05, Poor, Edmund W Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com wrote:
- it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
- it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other party being
"wrong"
I disagree. It's a matter of two people disputing. One of them may be disputing in a manner we approve of and the other disputing in a manner we do not. The purpose of dispute resolution is not to Find What Is Right, but rather to enable the disputants to come to an agreement without tearing each other's heads off.
Hmm. I would see the purpose of dispute resolution as simply to resolve the dispute; sometimes we do this by helping the disputants come to a civilised agreement, sometimes we do this by ruling on editors' behaviour and applying sanctions. The former is preferable, but isn't always possible. For those cases, we shouldn't be afraid to "Find What Is Right" (with respect to our policies, that is).
-- Matt
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matt_Crypto Blog: http://cipher-text.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________________ To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
On 11/28/05, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Hmm. I would see the purpose of dispute resolution as simply to resolve the dispute; sometimes we do this by helping the disputants come to a civilised agreement, sometimes we do this by ruling on editors' behaviour and applying sanctions. The former is preferable, but isn't always possible. For those cases, we shouldn't be afraid to "Find What Is Right" (with respect to our policies, that is).
-- Matt
I've always taken the view that if a disspute is being carried out within the rules of wikipedia it is extreamly difficult for it not to be settled (even if in one case it resulted in a sentance by sentance debate).
-- geni
From: wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org [mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Poor, Edmund W Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 02:45 To: English Wikipedia Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms
This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat
them around
the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it,
then gently
suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's
sometimes more
work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the
idjit is
cluifiable at all.
Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
Peter (Skyring)
Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul. It's slipped down to relativism:
We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both parties considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy standards (or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial Topic), while the other insists on being uncivil, adding inaccurate information, or using the article to push their point of view (POV)
THEN
- it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
- it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other
party being "wrong"
Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce civility and accuracy as key values of our community - and stamp out bias too!
I'm totally in favour of this.
The point I was making in what may have been too subtle a fashion, is that far too often disputes are concluded in a rankist fashion. Being a WP editor for years doesn't make someone right (or wrong, for that matter), but it certainly allows them to push their opinion further.
Peter (Skyring)