Mav wrote,
Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority. Nor is such a small body of people competent in the number of areas of knowledge needed to make this workable. I, for example, know very little about advanced mathematics so I would be unable to judge a content dispute in that area without spending a very, very long time on research.
I agree completely
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to develop another committee or mechanism.
This is not an either/or situation. My plan is for the ArbCom to consult various content specialist subcommittees when content issues arise. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alternat...
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I agree about babies and bathwater. I also like Mav's proposal. And I like Jguks. I see them as complementary -- Jguk's focusing on enforcing existing policies that are specifically content-related (NPOV, NOR, Cite Sources, Verifiability) and Mav's focusing on ensuring the high quality of our articles, in general. Right now it would probably be too unwieldy to enact both proposals, but I bet that as this community grows larger (say, in a year, possibly two) both proposals, with very clearly defined briefs, would be useful and practical.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701