Mark wrote about:
"POV pushers who don't actually violate any of our rules, or even good contributors who are very biased and very motivated on one particular issue, are a major problem. The neutral arbiters tend to be people without a personal stake in the subject, and it's hard for any of them to match the time commitment and passion that the POV pushers bring to the editing process."
He's right as usual: Highly motivated, biased contributors are the problem. (Sometimes I have been in this group -- sorry!)
The key point bears repeating:
* The neutral arbiters tend to be people without a personal stake in the subject.
That's why, so many times, I've been able to mediate certain conflicts. I really didn't care one way or another -- whether out of ignorance, or whatever -- what the article SAID; I just wanted to get both sides to be able to come to a mutually satisfying agreement.
Every mediation I've taken on has succeeded. My unbroken record of success comes, however, not from talent or wisdom or "mysterious occult powers", but from regarding one simple principle that Mark pointed out. You can't mediate if you have an "interest" in the outcome. You must be what judges and lawyers call a "disinterested" party. (not 'uninterested', which means you're bored by it!)
Gary D. (at [[Prem Rawat]]) and many others have done the same -- and usually much more smoothly and politely than me, of course!
We need mediators who can stand ABOVE the controversy and dispassionately describe all the reported facts, and all the advocated points of view. That means I can't help [[global warming]] or [[asbestos abatement]] or the use of [[DDT]] in preventing malaria. (Like, I won't go to a dinner party if I know Molly has been invited, because she always brings up gun control and we always have a big, disruptive debate about this: no matter how many times I promise my wife that I'll be "calm, fair, decent", etc. If I can't control myself in that situation, I just have to stay out of that situation.)
Okay, now, we all agree on the problem. But what is the solution?
Issue #1: Can we mark an article version as a sort of milestone? Shall we give users and search engines the milestone version as a default? Or at least as an opt-in preference?
Issue #2: Can we exclude certain users from editing certain articles? (How about starting on a small scale as an experiment: let admins "ban" NON-SIGNED-IN contributors, i.e., IP's, on a per-article basis -- and see how this works out. The [[Prem Rawat]] series would benefit.)
The wikiwiki idea is brilliant, and my hat's off to man who invented it. But any invention can be improved upon. I call upon Geoffrey, Mav, Fred, Rebecca, Elian, Jay, Mark, Erik and the whole gang:
Let's put our heads together and come up with an idea. Then let's try it out. If it doesn't work, we can try something else.
Ed Poor
This is one remedy the arbitration committee has been applying to dedicated POV warriors. Not always, it is not policy itself, just a way to deal with determined violaters of NPOV and other policies. But it could be policy. However it may prove difficult to separate editors who insist on the integrity of the article, like Adam Carr, from editors who insist on a biased article.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:47:14 -0700 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] POV Pushers (was: The "months later" effect)
Issue #2: Can we exclude certain users from editing certain articles? (How about starting on a small scale as an experiment: let admins "ban" NON-SIGNED-IN contributors, i.e., IP's, on a per-article basis -- and see how this works out. The [[Prem Rawat]] series would benefit.)
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is one remedy the arbitration committee has been applying to dedicated POV warriors. Not always, it is not policy itself, just a way to deal with determined violaters of NPOV and other policies. But it could be policy. However it may prove difficult to separate editors who insist on the integrity of the article, like Adam Carr, from editors who insist on a biased article.
His one-day ban was for personal abuse. And it should be noted that he has a long history of personal abusiveness, particularly in edit summaries (don't take my word for it, check his contributions).
I should note that I often completely agree with his comments along these lines. But that doesn't make them the right way to do things, and a record of good contributions *still* isn't an excuse for bad and (and this is the point) intimidatory behavior.
- d.
Adam Carr was banned for personal abuse, not for POV edit warring. In a few cases we have banned editors entirely from their POV area of interest.
Fred
From: David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 18:11:15 +0000 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] POV Pushers
Fred Bauder wrote:
This is one remedy the arbitration committee has been applying to dedicated POV warriors. Not always, it is not policy itself, just a way to deal with determined violaters of NPOV and other policies. But it could be policy. However it may prove difficult to separate editors who insist on the integrity of the article, like Adam Carr, from editors who insist on a biased article.
His one-day ban was for personal abuse. And it should be noted that he has a long history of personal abusiveness, particularly in edit summaries (don't take my word for it, check his contributions).
I should note that I often completely agree with his comments along these lines. But that doesn't make them the right way to do things, and a record of good contributions *still* isn't an excuse for bad and (and this is the point) intimidatory behavior.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
With the idea technical measures of banning certain users from certain articles, I think Ed's right on the money. Ed's sensible enough to know that he might not be able to stay neutral on global warming, so he doesn't edit articles related to this. There's some topics on which I'm the same. But for those users who don't know any better, I think this would be an apt solution. I know it's already been done in certain cases by the ArbCom, but I'd like to see it in greater use and perhaps (if it was to become a technical measure) able to be acted upon by any sysop (though of course, with stringent guidelines to avoid abuse). The idea of banning IPs from editing certain articles, I believe, would be very wise as well.
- ambi
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:16:50 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is one remedy the arbitration committee has been applying to dedicated POV warriors. Not always, it is not policy itself, just a way to deal with determined violaters of NPOV and other policies. But it could be policy. However it may prove difficult to separate editors who insist on the integrity of the article, like Adam Carr, from editors who insist on a biased article.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:47:14 -0700 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] POV Pushers (was: The "months later" effect)
Issue #2: Can we exclude certain users from editing certain articles? (How about starting on a small scale as an experiment: let admins "ban" NON-SIGNED-IN contributors, i.e., IP's, on a per-article basis -- and see how this works out. The [[Prem Rawat]] series would benefit.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Rebecca a écrit:
With the idea technical measures of banning certain users from certain articles, I think Ed's right on the money. Ed's sensible enough to know that he might not be able to stay neutral on global warming, so he doesn't edit articles related to this. There's some topics on which I'm the same. But for those users who don't know any better, I think this would be an apt solution. I know it's already been done in certain cases by the ArbCom, but I'd like to see it in greater use and perhaps (if it was to become a technical measure) able to be acted upon by any sysop (though of course, with stringent guidelines to avoid abuse). The idea of banning IPs from editing certain articles, I believe, would be very wise as well.
I do not support this last idea at all. The greatness of Wikipedia is in large part due to its openness toward all editors, ip included.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more prone to edit waring than identified users.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more biaised than identified users.
I however agree that IPs are probably more often vandals than pseudos.
Actually, I would even dare say that I think edit wars are much more often the fact of loggued-in users. Simply because while edit wars may be triggered by a disagreement, they are LARGELY fueled by pre-existing bad identified relationships between 2 editors.
If we want to reduce edit wars, the solution may not be to ban people, but to improve their tolerance to each other. If we want to limit pov, the solution is not to limit the number of editors, but on contrary to increase it.
ant
--- Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
If we want to reduce edit wars, the solution may not be to ban people, but to improve their tolerance to each other. If we want to limit pov, the solution is not to limit the number of editors, but on contrary to increase it.
As a test, on Occupation of Palestine (about a month ago) I called for a timeout. I came in through a prompt on this list by Ed Poor, who was involved in the escalating war of words. I put a notice that the page should not be changed for 48 hours, by any participant.
Ambi was not too supportive and asked me not to do it again (see my talk page).
I wonder, though, whether that is a viable solution for edit wars between logged in users. I agree that banning one party but not the other can often be interpreted as: there is a winner and there is a loser. This only reinforces animosity between wikipedians.
What I asked for in the timeout is that people think about what the page should become, and make changes offline, or on their own user pages.
I'd like some feedback from some of the participants as to the pros and cons of this approach.
It is my hope that we can develop a way to defuse edit wars early while allowing everyone to "save face" and have time to think things through.
===== Chris Mahan 818.943.1850 cell chris_mahan@yahoo.com chris.mahan@gmail.com http://www.christophermahan.com/
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
When a user engaged in an edit war logs out so that they can get in a few anonymous reverts it can be annoying. However their choice of articles to revert readily identifies them.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:15:46 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: POV Pushers (was: The "months later" effect)
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more prone to edit waring than identified users.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more biaised than identified users.
Yes, I do not even count these as anonymous :-) It changes nothing that they edit as ips as everyone is perfectly aware of who they are :-)
Fred Bauder a écrit:
When a user engaged in an edit war logs out so that they can get in a few anonymous reverts it can be annoying. However their choice of articles to revert readily identifies them.
Fred
From: Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:15:46 +0200 To: wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Re: POV Pushers (was: The "months later" effect)
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more prone to edit waring than identified users.
There is NO evidence in my view that IPS are more biaised than identified users.
I think this is a terrible idea. Mark
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
With the idea technical measures of banning certain users from certain articles, I think Ed's right on the money. Ed's sensible enough to know that he might not be able to stay neutral on global warming, so he doesn't edit articles related to this. There's some topics on which I'm the same. But for those users who don't know any better, I think this would be an apt solution. I know it's already been done in certain cases by the ArbCom, but I'd like to see it in greater use and perhaps (if it was to become a technical measure) able to be acted upon by any sysop (though of course, with stringent guidelines to avoid abuse). The idea of banning IPs from editing certain articles, I believe, would be very wise as well.
- ambi
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 09:16:50 -0600, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is one remedy the arbitration committee has
been applying to dedicated
POV warriors. Not always, it is not policy itself,
just a way to deal with
determined violaters of NPOV and other policies.
But it could be policy.
However it may prove difficult to separate editors
who insist on the
integrity of the article, like Adam Carr, from
editors who insist on a
biased article.
Fred
From: "Poor, Edmund W" Edmund.W.Poor@abc.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:47:14 -0700 To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] POV Pushers (was: The
"months later" effect)
Issue #2: Can we exclude certain users from
editing certain articles?
(How about starting on a small scale as an
experiment: let admins "ban"
NON-SIGNED-IN contributors, i.e., IP's, on a
per-article basis -- and
see how this works out. The [[Prem Rawat]]
series would benefit.)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
Rebecca wrote:
With the idea technical measures of banning certain users from certain articles, I think Ed's right on the money. Ed's sensible enough to know that he might not be able to stay neutral on global warming, so he doesn't edit articles related to this. There's some topics on which I'm the same. But for those users who don't know any better, I think this would be an apt solution. I know it's already been done in certain cases by the ArbCom, but I'd like to see it in greater use and perhaps (if it was to become a technical measure) able to be acted upon by any sysop (though of course, with stringent guidelines to avoid abuse). The idea of banning IPs from editing certain articles, I believe, would be very wise as well.
- ambi
I was just thinking "what sort of article could I not be able to edit?" and I started to think that there technically isn't one I can think of that I can't calm down and logically NPOV. Then I remembered me edits of [[Childlove movement]]. 'nuff said.
TBSDY