Rebecca wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
The simplest thing that comes to mind is to put the Mediation Committee in charge of the Requests for comments page. I think this would, if we can get enough mediators with enough energy, help address structural issues with both processes.
There are two major complaints made about RfC. One is that the page is poorly maintained and regularly swells to an unwieldy size. The other is that it's not terribly effective, because many requests do not succeed in drawing much comment from people outside the dispute. Each of these problems also tends to exacerbate the other.
If, to make mediation workable, we want it to happen earlier in the dispute resolution process, we need something that will signal the existence of a dispute to the mediators. Right now, what signal do we have available? That's right, RfC, which is itself in need of attention from mediator-types.
In particular, it would be great to have lots of mediators working to solve the article content disputes on RfC. With more effort along these lines, we might see fewer content-related issues going to arbitration, and less pressure to come up with some kind of separate content arbitration. Or, if content arbitration does indeed prove necessary, their experience might help us know how to come up with better solutions when we get there.
--Michael Snow
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
The simplest thing that comes to mind is to put the Mediation Committee in charge of the Requests for comments page. I think this would, if we can get enough mediators with enough energy, help address structural issues with both processes.
There are two major complaints made about RfC. One is that the page is poorly maintained and regularly swells to an unwieldy size. The other is that it's not terribly effective, because many requests do not succeed in drawing much comment from people outside the dispute. Each of these problems also tends to exacerbate the other.
Well, there's a couple of use who check and prune the requests quite often, but there's a lot of active disputes at any one time so the page is always quite large :-).
There's nothing to prevent anyone who wants to 'have a go' at mediation jumping in and doing it on RfC and 3rd opinion. I do it. It would be nice if more people did it, too. Perhaps the wording of the pages could be altered to encourage people to try and mediate, rather than make "you're right/he's wrong" type comments.
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
On 6/6/05, Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting for cases to come to them.
Now you're talking. I think this would solve one half of the problem, by getting in early - though I still think mediators could do with a bit of help learning some skills.
-- ambi
Now you're talking. I think this would solve one half of the problem, by getting in early - though I still think mediators could do with a bit of help learning some skills.
-- ambi
Yes, mediators definitely need to get in earlier. And it might be a good idea to allow for multi-party mediation if there's 2 distinct viewpoints being argued.
Also, it was mentioned earlier that Wikipedia as a written medium isn't the optimal place for mediation. I tend to disagree. The most important aspect - the mediator "forcing" the parties to get to the bottom (and therefore the real issues) of their disagreement - should still work just as well as collaborative editing does. Collaborative editing may not be as effective as face-to-face teamwork, but it still works. And I believe that mediation, if performed before things escalate could work just as well.
--Mgm
I think theres one issue that your missing here with mediation - Most parties that get to the point of arbitration have no desire to allow mediators to get involved, and have no desire to even consider discussing the situation. ----- Original Message ----- From: "MacGyverMagic/Mgm" macgyvermagic@gmail.com To: "Rebecca" misfitgirl@gmail.com; "English Wikipedia" wikien-l@wikipedia.org Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 5:06 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment
Now you're talking. I think this would solve one half of the problem, by getting in early - though I still think mediators could do with a bit of help learning some skills.
-- ambi
Yes, mediators definitely need to get in earlier. And it might be a good idea to allow for multi-party mediation if there's 2 distinct viewpoints being argued.
Also, it was mentioned earlier that Wikipedia as a written medium isn't the optimal place for mediation. I tend to disagree. The most important aspect - the mediator "forcing" the parties to get to the bottom (and therefore the real issues) of their disagreement - should still work just as well as collaborative editing does. Collaborative editing may not be as effective as face-to-face teamwork, but it still works. And I believe that mediation, if performed before things escalate could work just as well.
--Mgm _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/6/05, David 'DJ' Hedley spyders@btinternet.com wrote:
I think theres one issue that your missing here with mediation - Most parties that get to the point of arbitration have no desire to allow mediators to get involved, and have no desire to even consider discussing the situation.
I don't agree with this.
It is true that there exist incurably closed minded and uncooperative people. I believe such people form only a tiny minority of the people involved in Wikipedia. We should not worry about them when deciding our arbitration and moderation procedures, because the ultimate destination for such people is ejection from our community.
We need to use triage:
1. Those who want to cooperate and find a mutual solution but need an outsider to facilitate communication and to help cut away moot issues. 2. Those who are not interested in cooperation but can be reasoned with and can be convinced to accept a compromise. 3. People who can't be cured. (This group consists mostly of people who get their jollies due to disrupting wikipedia).
We should only expend substantial effort working on mediation support for a lower group once the higher group has been sufficiently handled.
Right now we have some users who want to help with disputes whom are very heavy handed. I think these approaches are good for class 3 users above, but if used on the first group it often turns them into the second. I think a lot of the recent grumbling about our toleration of aggressive admins is because by large they only tend to abuse #3s, which no one cares about.. quite rightly. :)
I think theres one issue that your missing here with mediation - Most parties that get to the point of arbitration have no desire to allow mediators to get involved, and have no desire to even consider discussing the situation.
I don't agree with this.
It is true that there exist incurably closed minded and uncooperative people. I believe such people form only a tiny minority of the people involved in Wikipedia. We should not worry about them when deciding our arbitration and moderation procedures, because the ultimate destination for such people is ejection from our community.
We need to use triage:
1. Those who want to cooperate and find a mutual solution but need an outsider to facilitate communication and to help cut away moot issues. 2. Those who are not interested in cooperation but can be reasoned with and can be convinced to accept a compromise. 3. People who can't be cured. (This group consists mostly of people who get their jollies due to disrupting wikipedia).
We should only expend substantial effort working on mediation support for a lower group once the higher group has been sufficiently handled.
Right now we have some users who want to help with disputes whom are very heavy handed. I think these approaches are good for class 3 users above, but if used on the first group it often turns them into the second. I think a lot of the recent grumbling about our toleration of aggressive admins is because by large they only tend to abuse #3s, which no one cares about.. quite rightly. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - I agree that it is a small majority that are un-cooperative. But it is this small majority that reach the arbitration committee, because as we know ArbCom don't deal with minor disputes.
--- Michael Snow wikipedia@earthlink.net wrote:
The simplest thing that comes to mind is to put the Mediation Committee in charge of the Requests for comments page. I think this would, if we can get enough mediators with enough energy, help address structural issues with both processes.
What a great idea! A 'Desired outcome' section should also be added to the RfC template so that the various sides of an RfC can indicate what they want from the process. A mediator could try to help the both sides come to an agreement.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com