I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated.
See [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement
Sarah
Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration does any more damage.
-Durova
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:10 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated.
See [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement
Sarah _______________________________________________ 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 Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration does any more damage.
-Durova
And the thought that "NPOV enforcers" would be doing this "enforcing," is.. it.. it just does not generate the warm and fuzzy feeling we look for in good ideas.
It's bad enough we have an Arbcom that likes to think it should'nt have to explain itself to anybody, let alone discuss things openly. Your vision of enforcement only conjures up a vision of Sean Connery in red daipers and on horseback, shooting at people indiscriminately with a revolver.
SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious. Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad.
SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works.." Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of [abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like Zardoz to me.
-SV
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:22 PM, stevertigo stvrtg@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Durova nadezhda.durova@gmail.com wrote:
Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration does any more damage.
-Durova
And the thought that "NPOV enforcers" would be doing this "enforcing," is.. it.. it just does not generate the warm and fuzzy feeling we look for in good ideas.
It's bad enough we have an Arbcom that likes to think it should'nt have to explain itself to anybody, let alone discuss things openly. Your vision of enforcement only conjures up a vision of Sean Connery in red daipers and on horseback, shooting at people indiscriminately with a revolver.
SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious. Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad.
SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works.." Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of [abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like Zardoz to me.
This is the key point, I think. We don't have an absolute definition of neutrality. We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of system. Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress. Now, SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads
"However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to both sides."
That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is the only way the proposal could work.
Nevertheless, I do not think this is enough to actually make it work. The problem is that these disputes are so deep-seated and controversial that such a system will be the subject of constant attempts at gaming. The problem will not be fixed but merely moved.
The other problem is that the system pretends that "it should be clear to any reasonable ... onlooker" how the editor is trying to act. Often, this will be the case. Just as often, however, it will not be so very absolutely clear and will rely greatly on the perception of the onlooker. This, I think, is the fatal flaw, because it is the assumption that the whole proposal rests on, that it is always so obvious who is trying to edit in a neutral and helpful fashion and who is being biased.
(One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy -- Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom. I don't think that that would be a positive change.)
Sam
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
The other problem is that the system pretends that "it should be clear to any reasonable ... onlooker" how the editor is trying to act. Often, this will be the case. Just as often, however, it will not be so very absolutely clear and will rely greatly on the perception of the onlooker. This, I think, is the fatal flaw, because it is the assumption that the whole proposal rests on, that it is always so obvious who is trying to edit in a neutral and helpful fashion and who is being biased.
(One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy -- Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom. I don't think that that would be a positive change.)
SV might have a point, with regard to focused "committees," however, (Yes, I did just annihilate her concept two posts above), in spite the fears that it might "create bureaucracy" - We already have "bureaucracy" of Arbcom and admins and "policy" and such. We just don't quite understand how awful it is, because we think it works. The idea that the Arbcom can deal with issues at all is a useless one, if anyone has ever jumped into the workings of the Arbcom. And the current "enforcers;" an army of geeky overgrown teenagers full of concept and little being, likewise can be problematic.
So, SV has an idea with regard to some kind of oversight council which deals with one particular area. Why not have a council that deals with these things on a regular basis. The Arbcom wants to be a hanging court? Fine, let them. Let's set up something else that actually deals with issues, and not just punishments.
-SV
stevertigo a écrit :
SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious. Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad.
SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works.." Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of [abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like Zardoz to me.
-SV
If I had jumped into reading this conversation halfway through, I'd be extremely confused.
CB
I could not be more against this if I tried. I understand the issues surrounding the I/P articles, and I realize that they are a WP:BATTLEGROUND, but creating an actual cabal to deal with it seems to exponentially increase the drama in this area. The creation of a secret mailing list would just spur on the accusations of secret POV pushing, and would be a divisive force in the community. Please reconsider!
Sincerely, Silas Snider
--- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
-- Edmund Burke
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:10 AM, SlimVirgin slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated.
See [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I like the idea - thought provoking even if I don't think it's workable at this stage.
I'd suggest for now creating a user template notice and a project of volunteers who could go around looking at editors contributions and putting this template on their pages if appropriate. Let's see the impact that has first, before we start banning people.
Andrew
----- Original Message ----- From: "SlimVirgin" slimvirgin@gmail.com To: "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Friday, 8 May, 2009 09:10:37 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal Subject: [WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
I've started a proposal to enforce neutral editing on Israel-Palestine articles, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. Input would be much appreciated.
See [[Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement]]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutrality_enforcement
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
2009/5/9 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
I'd suggest for now creating a user template notice and a project of volunteers who could go around looking at editors contributions and putting this template on their pages if appropriate. Let's see the impact that has first, before we start banning people.
*headdesk*
Templating people who are editing problematically never works, ever.
You can word the template however carefully you like (do we have any under 200 words?) but the message is:
"You are doing something I don't like, this is a threat of blocking."
Result: more sockpuppetry.
- d.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 4:54 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/5/9 Andrew Turvey andrewrturvey@googlemail.com:
I'd suggest for now creating a user template notice and a project of
volunteers who could go around looking at editors contributions and putting this template on their pages if appropriate. Let's see the impact that has first, before we start banning people.
*headdesk*
Templating people who are editing problematically never works, ever.
You can word the template however carefully you like (do we have any under 200 words?) but the message is:
"You are doing something I don't like, this is a threat of blocking."
Result: more sockpuppetry.
I think the results are better than 0%, but they're terrible.
When I spend a couple of minutes with an editor and topic specific writeup asking someone to stop and explaining the policy, it seems to be much more effective on average.
I also template people - but I leave a paragraph or two of custom note nearly every time I template. I template at the bottom so that other admins who review can see "Oh, that's a uw-foobar-3, one more strike" rather than having to figure their way through the note i left to determine how serious it was etc.