I totally agree with Fastfission. There are probably quite a few editors who find themselves peacefully editing when suddenly a nasty POV-pusher comes crashing on the scene overwhelming a perfectly balanced article with biased rubbish. By the time a POV-pusher has been stopped, a large amount of damage has been done. Often, these edits are not reverted (to keep the peace?) but weaseled down. In other instances, a shouting match develops on the talk page, which then becomes the basis for an RFC. None of this helps the quality of the content. RFC, however, is completely inadequate. Community response to RFCs is very modest, even (or especially) when controversial articles are being discussed. Only recruiting like-minded editors through their talkpages seems to help. RFC or otherwise, it often leads to no agreement between the litigants, and mediation is sought etc etc. By that time the experienced user is already tired and wants to go back to normal editing.
Jfdwolff
Fastfission wrote:
Yeah, I don't know. But that seems to fall into the more general category of "people who won't discuss", of which there is no quick and simple solution that I know of.
Yes yes, I could take a lot of time filling out an RfC. And then what? Move it to another stage of mediation? I don't have time for that -- it's not how I want to spend my Wikipedia experience. It's probably not how anybody wants to. And honestly, it's really not Wikipedia's best use of ME -- I'm not a mediator by heart, I'm someone who wants to add content by the truckloads and keep POV pushers out. But at the same time I believe strongly in due process. So I don't know.
FF
On 23/06/05, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
RFC, however, is completely inadequate. Community response to RFCs is very modest, even (or especially) when controversial articles are being discussed. Only recruiting like-minded editors through their talkpages seems to help. RFC or otherwise, it often leads to no agreement between the litigants, and mediation is sought etc etc. By that time the experienced user is already tired and wants to go back to normal editing.
Jfdwolff
In the last few weeks, several of us have made an effort to respond to RfCs and try and 'mediate' on an ad-hoc basis - with good results, I might add.
And as a result of a suggestion by Maurreen in response to Raul's RfAr/RfC, we've recently made an overhaul of the RfC content section - with the results being very well recieved.
So please, don't write RfCs off.
Dan
I have found that these "like minded editors" solicited by talk page, email, IRC or whatever are the worst thing possible in every situation. There is no surer way to enforce POV or enact mob psychology.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/23/05, Dan Grey dangrey@gmail.com wrote:
On 23/06/05, jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk jfdwolff@doctors.org.uk wrote:
RFC, however, is completely inadequate. Community response to RFCs is very modest, even (or especially) when controversial articles are being discussed. Only recruiting like-minded editors through their talkpages seems to help. RFC or otherwise, it often leads to no agreement between the litigants, and mediation is sought etc etc. By that time the experienced user is already tired and wants to go back to normal editing.
Jfdwolff
In the last few weeks, several of us have made an effort to respond to RfCs and try and 'mediate' on an ad-hoc basis - with good results, I might add.
And as a result of a suggestion by Maurreen in response to Raul's RfAr/RfC, we've recently made an overhaul of the RfC content section - with the results being very well recieved.
So please, don't write RfCs off.
Dan _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I have found that these "like minded editors" solicited by talk page, email, IRC or whatever are the worst thing possible in every situation. There is no surer way to enforce POV or enact mob psychology.
An alternative view it that editors recruit other editors to give their opinions and gain consensus about an on-going conflict, using various means, including RfC, Talk: pages, etc. And if you can't find anyone to support your view, whereas many editors support your opponents' view, then this may well be a sign that you are wrong.
Jay.
Or simply outnumbered.
Fred
On Jun 25, 2005, at 10:20 PM, JAY JG wrote:
From: Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com
I have found that these "like minded editors" solicited by talk page, email, IRC or whatever are the worst thing possible in every situation. There is no surer way to enforce POV or enact mob psychology.
An alternative view it that editors recruit other editors to give their opinions and gain consensus about an on-going conflict, using various means, including RfC, Talk: pages, etc. And if you can't find anyone to support your view, whereas many editors support your opponents' view, then this may well be a sign that you are wrong.
Jay.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l