--- Abe Sokolov abesokolov@hotmail.com wrote:
It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies, especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research, Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).
Policy is policy but some policies take more thought to enforce than others. The arbcom is already ruling on NPOV infractions - something we would not touch at first due to it being too closely related to content. Expanding into the other content policies would not be a big deal, if done is a deliberate and well-measured way (as was the move into enforcing NPOV). The current ArbCom already has experience in this type of thing. Let's build on that.
Danny and I were playing with the idea of having the ArbCom convene special panels of non-involved people for certain cases (not necessarily English Wikipedia users), who could inform the ArbCom on the particulars of content (whether or not a particular idea is mainstream, alternative but valid to include in some way, or idiosyncratic/original research).
Such info could be used in ArbCom proceedings to better inform the arbcom in cases that involve accusation of breaking content-related policies (just as developers inform the arbcom on the likelyhood that two or more users are socks). IMO, such an idea deserves some thought and refinement.
But having a separate standing committee would be redundant, especially due to the fact that any one case will likely involve accusations of breaking both content and behavioral policies and guidelines.
-- mav
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
Fred
From: Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 15:42:13 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
Danny and I were playing with the idea of having the ArbCom convene special panels of non-involved people for certain cases (not necessarily English Wikipedia users), who could inform the ArbCom on the particulars of content (whether or not a particular idea is mainstream, alternative but valid to include in some way, or idiosyncratic/original research).
Such info could be used in ArbCom proceedings to better inform the arbcom in cases that involve accusation of breaking content-related policies (just as developers inform the arbcom on the likelyhood that two or more users are socks). IMO, such an idea deserves some thought and refinement.
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
Neat tidbit. It seems to me it would require a very large pool of people to draw on. Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has expertise, or a good editing history in that area...
It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes, which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to come before the AC.
This would give our experts something which their special qualifications, knowing the literature, would provide real help to Wikipedia. We would still need to be on the look out for axe grinders. However, the biases of scholars who have an extensive body of published work are not that hard to figure out. We might require some real names and verification for this. I seem this as more a committee of thousands than dozens; but that's looking ahead.
Fred
From: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com Reply-To: Sj 2.718281828@gmail.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2005 19:11:46 -0500 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 16:56:26 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is something courts do when they are faced with fact situations they aren't competent to deal with. Sometimes such a fact finder is called a special master. This will become much easier to do as more experts become aware of and interested in Wikipedia.
Neat tidbit. It seems to me it would require a very large pool of people to draw on. Sort of like the 100+ usage experts for the American Heritage Dictionary -- not exclusive, just anyone who has expertise, or a good editing history in that area...
It could be ugly if there were a fixed set of 3 or 4 people for each subject who were called on each time; or if simple content disputes, which would otherwise have been resolved elsewhere, were encouraged to come before the AC.
-- +sj+ _ _ :-------.-.--------.--.--------.-.--------.--.--------[...] _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 17:27:59 -0700, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
... the biases of scholars who have an extensive body of published work are not that hard to figure out. We might require some real names and verification for this. I seem this as more a committee of thousands than dozens; but that's looking ahead.
I'm not sure that anything more than good work would be required for verification. I suppose if you want 'credit' for work produced off-wiki, then off-wiki verification is required. But a group of thousands would be wonderful.
SJ