Rebecca wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
The point is that it didn't work before, and there's been no idea of how to fix the issue that ruined things before - that none of us are trained mediators, and most of us simply did not have the skills to bring antagonistic, warring parties together. We'd all like a mediation committee that worked, but wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
I don't think the problem with mediation is a lack of training or skills (no offense, but by and large I wouldn't call the arbitrators professionally trained either). Mediation can be handled by anybody with good sense, patience, and the ability to resist getting over-agitated by the emotions of the disputing parties. We actually have had quite a few instances of successful mediation, but many of them have happened outside the formal process, often handled by people who are not part of the Mediation Committee.
However, I agree that formal mediation is not working terribly well for us. One of the biggest challenges for Wikipedia mediation is simply the fact that we're stuck in an online, text-only medium. This affects mediation more dramatically than the other dispute resolution processes, because it takes away a key element of what normally makes mediation successful.
One of the reasons mediation works is because it brings the parties together, *face-to-face* and with an observer present. This brings into play all kinds of social inhibitions that force the parties to tone down their hostility and aggression. The resulting atmosphere is much more conducive for the mediator and the parties to work together and find a mutually acceptable solution.
Wikipedia mediation doesn't have a feasible way to recreate these conditions, and I doubt that even real-time communication via IRC can overcome this handicap. The lowered barriers against being deliberately offensive and the ease of miscommunication when using text are too great a challenge. As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
--Michael Snow
I couldn't agree more, Michael.
--Mgm
On 6/5/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
The point is that it didn't work before, and there's been no idea of how to fix the issue that ruined things before - that none of us are trained mediators, and most of us simply did not have the skills to bring antagonistic, warring parties together. We'd all like a mediation committee that worked, but wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
I don't think the problem with mediation is a lack of training or skills (no offense, but by and large I wouldn't call the arbitrators professionally trained either). Mediation can be handled by anybody with good sense, patience, and the ability to resist getting over-agitated by the emotions of the disputing parties. We actually have had quite a few instances of successful mediation, but many of them have happened outside the formal process, often handled by people who are not part of the Mediation Committee.
However, I agree that formal mediation is not working terribly well for us. One of the biggest challenges for Wikipedia mediation is simply the fact that we're stuck in an online, text-only medium. This affects mediation more dramatically than the other dispute resolution processes, because it takes away a key element of what normally makes mediation successful.
One of the reasons mediation works is because it brings the parties together, *face-to-face* and with an observer present. This brings into play all kinds of social inhibitions that force the parties to tone down their hostility and aggression. The resulting atmosphere is much more conducive for the mediator and the parties to work together and find a mutually acceptable solution.
Wikipedia mediation doesn't have a feasible way to recreate these conditions, and I doubt that even real-time communication via IRC can overcome this handicap. The lowered barriers against being deliberately offensive and the ease of miscommunication when using text are too great a challenge. As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
--Michael Snow _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
I don't think the problem with mediation is a lack of training or skills (no offense, but by and large I wouldn't call the arbitrators professionally trained either). Mediation can be handled by anybody with good sense, patience, and the ability to resist getting over-agitated by the emotions of the disputing parties. We actually have had quite a few instances of successful mediation, but many of them have happened outside the formal process, often handled by people who are not part of the Mediation Committee.
I think you're partly right there - mediation can be handled by anyone with those qualities, and in many cases, has indeed worked. I know of many instances of successful mediation outside of the formal process. The problem, though, is that a) the formal process hasn't been working - people haven't been able to get mediators to a particular dispute when its needed to prevent it from going any further, and b) some of the disputes are just too heated for all but the best mediators to do - and we don't have very many of those. It's for the latter reason that I'd really like to see someone like Ed Poor put together a guide to help those of us who aren't quite so good at it.
[skipped a bunch of stuff that is very true]
As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
-- ambi
On 6/6/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
... As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
-- ambi
We have RC patrol. Would a Mediation patrol be useful? It would be fairly simple to set up a page to allow people to post disputes they happen to come across. You can find many of them just by looking at talk pages on Special:Recentchanges.
like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal
?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/6/05, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
... As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
-- ambi
We have RC patrol. Would a Mediation patrol be useful? It would be fairly simple to set up a page to allow people to post disputes they happen to come across. You can find many of them just by looking at talk pages on Special:Recentchanges.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring/Evid... you will see an ArbCom hearing proceeding in the evidence-gathering stage. It was my naive belief that the process was as fair and open as need be. However, anybody knowing anything about this case will see that one party has conspicuously failed to show on the evidence page apart from a brief appearance at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrati...
I chipped him about this on the talk page, saying it looked as if he was squibbing his chance to give evidence. His response? "My views are well known to the ArbCom." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
Is this *really* how it works? The whole process is a sham and it all depends on backroom deals?
Uh, no. It's kind of rude to jump to conclusions. There have been no backroom deals. Adam's views are only known because he's been around a long time and has made his views on editing Wikipedia and experts well known - through many a dispute and the occasional arbitration case. He's also known to not be fond of the arbitration process - hence the brevity of his "evidence".
-- ambi
On 6/8/05, Skyring skyring@gmail.com wrote:
If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Skyring/Evid... you will see an ArbCom hearing proceeding in the evidence-gathering stage. It was my naive belief that the process was as fair and open as need be. However, anybody knowing anything about this case will see that one party has conspicuously failed to show on the evidence page apart from a brief appearance at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_arbitrati...
I chipped him about this on the talk page, saying it looked as if he was squibbing his chance to give evidence. His response? "My views are well known to the ArbCom." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitr...
Is this *really* how it works? The whole process is a sham and it all depends on backroom deals?
-- Peter in Canberra _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l