Stevertigo:
And of course this violating concept appears to be indemic wherever people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this trend.
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list is actually against the grain of that. I've only recently signed up to a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd say.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for everyone to join, it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to have a rather different audience.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute with someone else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my points.
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways and means to deal with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
Steve,
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular on-wiki discussion of dispute resolution.
Fred
Stevertigo:
And of course this violating concept appears to be indemic wherever people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this trend.
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list is actually against the grain of that. I've only recently signed up to a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd say.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for everyone to join, it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to have a rather different audience.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute with someone else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my points.
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways and means to deal with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Let's take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution and work it out there. That talk page itself involves certain restrictions, but I think from there we could establish some appropriate forum for regular on-wiki discussion of dispute resolution.
I have a couple of substantive points to respond to here Fred, but yes I will direct myself there in a bit under the "appropriate forum" thread.
-Steven
Excellent comments by Bod Notbod.
Posting my response under the 'A modest proposal - a recap of resolution-l' thread.
-Stevertigo
On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:31 AM, Bod Notbodbodnotbod@gmail.com wrote:
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list is actually against the grain of that. I've only recently signed up to a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd say.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for everyone to join, it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to have a rather different audience.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute with someone else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my points.
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways and means to deal with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Subject-Was: Blocking / Moderation
Okay, so lets properly open the topic. How would anyone go about getting participants in a dispute to subscribe to this list or any other?
"Bod Notbod" bodnotbod@gmail.com wrote in message news:3ae0a6ac0907280131k4e867aeer147f5fd65bedd9c4@mail.gmail.com...
Stevertigo:
And of course this violating concept appears to be indemic wherever people feel they can neglect transparency - as mandated in their own mandates, perhaps - making their deliberations in private and giving people only decrees and motions. Wales, who was for a long time our most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this trend.
I like transparency too.
It makes me pause to wonder whether a dispute resolution mailing list is actually against the grain of that. I've only recently signed up to a couple of the mailing lists as I intend to get (and am getting) more involved with Wikipedia. These lists have a pretty low profile, I'd say.
That is rectifiable to some degree. Someone could make a userbox for subscribers that includes both nntp and e-mail methods of access. If it propagates anything like the basic grammar boxes, then we might double subscription in a year.
Whilst these mailing lists are, I believe, open for everyone to join, it still strikes me as a bit of a back door: I would have thought it far more transparent to deal with all dispute resolution on the wiki itself where people can see what's going on (and people can place relevant links easily) rather than in an email list which is going to have a rather different audience.
It does naturally hav a different audience, and I think your perception of how many people DO see a dispute when there is one just because they CAN see a dispute is a bit at odds with reality. I know of one that I've pretty much let rest, because I do not think any of the three participants will remember it, either.
To put it another way, if I were an editor in dispute with someone else and I wasn't subscribed to the mailing list and I become aware the other person was discussing it there, I think I'd rightly feel that there was something "going on" in a sort of conspiratorial way and that a conscious effort had been made to circumvent tackling my points.
My method of engaging administrators probably should hav included an invitation to join the list, or a request to see discussion of my case on unblock-l. Hindsight. I did not like any of their slack research on me, anyway.
The wiki (en, at least) doesn't seem short of ways and means to deal with disputes. I'm somewhat sceptical about the motivation in creating a new channel for disputes that requires all parties to sign up for an email service to be fully cognisant of where that dispute is heading.
That goes back to my orijinal question. How would anyone go about getting participants in a dispute to sign up for wikien-l , unblock-l, or any other? There are reciprocal links you could make. I used to make bookmarks to USENET discussions with NNTP URLS and post them to my website. Now, I am more prone to post search URLS there. *If you can find an article here on the gmane web server, then you can pull a permalink out of it and post that to wikipedia*. Everything slick takes a right click. _______ news://news.gmane.org/gmane.science.linguistics.wikipedia.english