Dear all
I hope I did not overstep because I was bold. I had time last night :-)
I edited/created the articles having the do with mediation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation
Here is how I perceive things
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee *list all the current mediators, and give means to contact them (among user talk page, email, irc, icq, phone...) *explanation of what a mediator is (duties and rights to respect within that role) and how it differs from an arbitrator * how the commitee works as an entity : private mailing list, report from a mediator to the others, advices given within the group, external counsellor (alex756) *how to be a mediator yourself *requests to be appointed *mention of availability among the current mediators
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation *short point list of the most important points about mediation - what is and what is not mediation - which type of conflicts it may handle - rights and duties of those asking mediation (confidentiality�) - how and when to request mediation - the basic of the procedure - what will happen if that fails� (I expect all this to remain short and very explicit) *current cases in mediation and state of each case *pending requests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3Amediation A fairly detailed page on what mediation is or should be With *description of what mediation is "in the real world" *application to wikipedia case
Currently, the first part comes mostly from our article on mediation, and from what was previously written on the matter in several places The second part (if I remember well) mostly from Jussy work on meta
I think this article should mostly be seen as a ressource for the mediators (for any mediator, including those out of the commitee) * ideas for how to face the possibly very heated editors at the beginning of the process, and cool down things * suggestions for various steps (I believe each case is particular, but a bit of structure is often beneficial) * perhaps some links to ressources about fallacies ? * previous cases ? * external links with ressources about mediation ? * ?
-------
I would like to mention two points I think are important
References : http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation_oversight_procedure
Jussi suggested on meta the use of a silent observer, whom role would be to monitor the mediation session.
I disagree with this as a requirement (I however think it is potentially useful, and potentially a learning tool as well). But it complicates a process which should stay fluid. By default, it does not trust the process and the people involved. And finally, at any point in the process, any one is free (and big enough) to say there is a problem, and mediation can't proceed properly in the given situation. I think this idea should be discussed more in any cases.
The second point is about the type of conflict which could be fixed. Jussi, you wrote " The main purpose of Wikipedia mediation framework is to provide a means to resolve disputes over articles when the standard consensus editing model is not working."
Well�.In the two years on Wikipedia, I have seen enough to say many disputes are not only content (article) dispute, disagreements over the title of the article, an image to insert here rather than there, the undeletion of a page, a consensus over a rule, the label of a picture, the insertion over an opinion, whatever.
We all have our bad days, when we are a bit stubborn, jump on the first motive to flame someone, or answer to the first provocation, misunderstand a statement.
If we care about the community, or if we care about the other editor, chance is we get over the conflict alone. More or less easily. But sometimes not. Sometimes the group has to come to help; sometimes we need someone to come help us regain our wits.
Sometimes these conflicts will escalate pretty badly, with screams to unsysop people, or ban them, threats, community name calling, to the point not only the people directly involved, but the whole community will suffer of it.
It might express itself upon articles. Or not. The articles themselves are sometimes the origin of a conflict, sometimes they are just the reflect, the mirror of an inner conflict between 2 people, or a core disagreement between an editor and the community.
When 2 people flame themselves, every couple of weeks, or spread the flame all over wikipedia, chance is the conflict to solve is not just over an article.
Fixing the article dispute will fix the article, but will not uncover the root of the personal conflict. But it will certainly provide a lot of work to the mediator weeks after weeks. Most conflicts are people conflicts.
These cases, conflict over content, or conflict between personnalities, or conflicts over core principles, need to be fixed. Not article only. Because all impact on community health, discourage people to participate, to collaborate. It is not good that a personal conflict is confused with a conflict over content. When someone comes to discuss a conflict between persons, and he is answered over article content issues, it is just *missing the point*. Badly.
Human capital is essential. Without the people, there is no community building. Without community, there is no project building. Without project, there is no encyclopedia.
In short (do I ever succeed to do that ?), mediation can make wonders over article conflicts. But it should help conflicts user/user and user/community as well. And if it does not help, that will be for the arbitration team to cut things short. Ie, to ban the one not respecting the core principles. Or to ban the asocial.
--------
Just my opinions�I hope some will comment on the relevant pages :-)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus