On 14 Oct 2007 at 19:44:42 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think most real courts have one judge per case. It's only when you reach the highest level that you get tried by the entire bench (or, at least, a selection from it). One judge only works when you have clear laws that have right and wrong answers, and you have a jury to determine points of fact. We could introduce a jury system to Wikipedia, but I don't think it would work - the population is too small, and we have no way to make jury duty compulsory (if you pick 12 Wikipedians at random from those active and willing to serve, you stand too great a chance of some of them being involved, or at least knowing the parties).
Interestingly, I just watched the movie "12 Angry Men"... it's interesting to note that, under the prevailing Wikipedia community culture at the moment, the guy who, early on, was the one juror who voted to acquit when the other 11 were saying "guilty", would probably be labeled a "troll". After all, he was going against community consensus, and couldn't even (at first) articulate a good reason behind believing the defendant was innocent -- in fact, he sounded like he didn't really believe the guy was innocent himself, just that fairness required more of a debate than a quick 12-0 vote to convict. Somebody who acted like that in any of the many wikidrama debates that go on here would be labeled as disrupting things to prove a point, and ignored and dismissed (and maybe labeled a sockpuppet of a banned user and summarily removed)... then everybody else could go on with their unanimous verdict to fry the defendant, and the other juror would make it to the ballgame he had tickets to that night.
Interestingly, I just watched the movie "12 Angry Men"... it's interesting to note that, under the prevailing Wikipedia community culture at the moment, the guy who, early on, was the one juror who voted to acquit when the other 11 were saying "guilty", would probably be labeled a "troll". After all, he was going against community consensus, and couldn't even (at first) articulate a good reason behind believing the defendant was innocent -- in fact, he sounded like he didn't really believe the guy was innocent himself, just that fairness required more of a debate than a quick 12-0 vote to convict. Somebody who acted like that in any of the many wikidrama debates that go on here would be labeled as disrupting things to prove a point, and ignored and dismissed (and maybe labeled a sockpuppet of a banned user and summarily removed)... then everybody else could go on with their unanimous verdict to fry the defendant, and the other juror would make it to the ballgame he had tickets to that night.
"Going against consensus" doesn't really make sense. If someone wants to go against it, then there isn't really a consensus. "Vast majority" and "consensus" are not the same thing.
On 14 Oct 2007 at 19:44:42 +0100, "Thomas Dalton" thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I think most real courts have one judge per case. It's only when you reach the highest level that you get tried by the entire bench (or, at least, a selection from it). One judge only works when you have clear laws that have right and wrong answers, and you have a jury to determine points of fact. We could introduce a jury system to Wikipedia, but I don't think it would work - the population is too small, and we have no way to make jury duty compulsory (if you pick 12 Wikipedians at random from those active and willing to serve, you stand too great a chance of some of them being involved, or at least knowing the parties).
on 10/14/07 3:45 PM, Daniel R. Tobias at dan@tobias.name wrote:
Interestingly, I just watched the movie "12 Angry Men"... it's interesting to note that, under the prevailing Wikipedia community culture at the moment, the guy who, early on, was the one juror who voted to acquit when the other 11 were saying "guilty", would probably be labeled a "troll". After all, he was going against community consensus, and couldn't even (at first) articulate a good reason behind believing the defendant was innocent -- in fact, he sounded like he didn't really believe the guy was innocent himself, just that fairness required more of a debate than a quick 12-0 vote to convict. Somebody who acted like that in any of the many wikidrama debates that go on here would be labeled as disrupting things to prove a point, and ignored and dismissed (and maybe labeled a sockpuppet of a banned user and summarily removed)... then everybody else could go on with their unanimous verdict to fry the defendant, and the other juror would make it to the ballgame he had tickets to that night.
Beautiful, Dan! Great film! And the comparison to what sometimes goes on here couldn't be more dead on. But at least as a juror, you can't be threatened with moderation.
Marc