I generally agree w your points.
My suggestion would be to create a long list of willing mediators for
clients to choose from, and create some sort of rating system to
reward those who are successful mediators. Maybe (this is just one
flippant example) put a star by their name for every success, and
remove on for every failure. Some process whereby good mediators are
rewarded, and bad mediators either learn from their mistakes, or move
on.
My primary complaint w the wikipedia is synonymous w my complaint with
the mediation commitee selection process.Too much emphasis on voting
and the opinions of the insiders, not enough emphasis on results,
efficiency, and the bottom line.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/6/05, Fl Celloguy <flcelloguy(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Thats all true,
but there are measurable affects, and I think I'm far
from alone in wishing that more benefits were reaped. I donno about
arbiters, but we could use acouple hundred more mediators. The
mediation commitee selection process is an error which should not be
perpetuated.
Jack (Sam Spade)
Sam Spade, what do you think is wrong with the mediation selection process?
We can't exactly hold elections, because there's a variable amount of us. Do
you have any reforms/opinions?
Regarding the effectiveness of mediation: it is true that Requests for
mediation (RfM) was backlogged a few weeks ago. However, there's been a wave
of new mediators/ applicants, and the MedCom is up and running again. The
reason, in my opinion, why there's no immediate effect by the functioning of
the MedCom is the nature of the work itself - unlike the ArbCom, we don't
determine who's "right" and who's "wrong", we can't dole
out punishments,
and our word isn't binding. On the contrary, we strive to resolve the
disputes before they reach the ArbCom. This is often difficult to
accomplish, because disputes that have reached the stage of mediation are
already very demanding, and even with the best mediator, it is doubtful that
the dispute can be resolved completely. It is human nature that once you
have a bad experience with another user, even after mediation, your views
will not be altered significantly. Mediation is also a extremely long and
time-consuming process; unlike the ArbCom, there is no definitive "end" to
mediation. While the job is tough, I consider it worthwhile if the two
disputees gain even an inch more respect and understanding for each other.
Thus, I beleive in that sense, mediation has been working.
In another sense, though, the MedCom has failed. If I am correct, the
original intentions of the WikiQuette Committee (the predecessor to the
MedCom) was to lighten the load from the ArbCom. This has not happened; a
cursorary glance at the current cases facing the ArbCom show that almost
none attempted mediation. In fact, the vast majority of ArbCom cases over
the past year have not gone through the MedCom.
Thus, I am going to make a suggestion: re-introduce and emphasize the role
of the MedCom in the dispute resolution process. While the MedCom should by
no means be doling out punishment or determining findings of facts, if even
one-fourth of the current cases went through MedCom first, I believe the
mutual respect between the involved parties would often increase - if only
somewhat. Though it is doubtful that the MedCom would prevent any of these
cases from going to the ArbCom, by having attempted mediation, not only
would the mutual respect increase (hopefully), but also show the ArbCom that
both sides have made good-faith efforts at resolving the conflict.
A second suggestion: hand the MedCom more power. In other words, make the
MedCom serve as the "lower court" that has been proposed, except that
instead of deciding cases, the MedCom could attempt to mediate, reject the
case, or refer to the ArbCom. Thus, the MedCom would serve as a "filter"
before the ArbCom, only referring to the ArbCom cases which they believe
warrant arbitration, thus filtering out cases where mediation could possibly
work and cases that are too ridiculous to reach the ArbCom. Of course, if
mediation does not resolve the dispute, the MedCom can always refer the
dispute to the ArbCom.
It is my opinion, as demonstrated above, that the MedCom should be more
involved in the dispute resolution process than it currently is. While it
may not be the solution that we are searching for regarding the ArbCom
reforms, I certainly think that placing a greater emphasis on attempting
mediation first is worthwhile.
Also, let me take this opportunity, in the spirit of Esperanza, to thank
each and every one of you for your wonderful work on Wikipedia. Without you,
this great project would not be possible. I know that it is easy to feel
underappreciated, but know that many of us all admire and appreciate your
work. Also, let me wish all the ArbCom candidates best of luck at this time,
and to prepare - and warn- you of the long road ahead of you.
As always, I am seeking input on my views and value your opinions.
Regards,
Flcelloguy
From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia.
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l