The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
--Mark Pellegrini
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050605 05:23]:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Everyone should read and consider this. We've had *lengthy* discussions on this matter on wikien-l.
Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What to do about this?
- d.
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
--Mgm
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050605 05:23]:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Everyone should read and consider this. We've had *lengthy* discussions on this matter on wikien-l.
Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What to do about this?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There does need to be some sort of final say on matters of NPOV and opinion. Concensus cannot always be achieved, and many contentious pages are controlled by a POV lobby which alert one another when a vote w partican potential comes along.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
--Mgm
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Mark Pellegrini (mapellegrini@comcast.net) [050605 05:23]:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
Everyone should read and consider this. We've had *lengthy* discussions on this matter on wikien-l.
Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What to do about this?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Jack Lynch wrote:
There does need to be some sort of final say on matters of NPOV and opinion. Concensus cannot always be achieved, and many contentious pages are controlled by a POV lobby which alert one another when a vote w partican potential comes along.
The problem there is more the POV lobby than the specific POV that they are supporting.
Ec
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
That's what we do at the moment, look at the conduct and leave the content to work itself out. The question is whether we are missing the underlying problem by doing this. Are we missing the frustrations that /lead/ to good people loosing their temper and acting badly? And would it be better for there to be some other means, outside of the AC, to solve these content disputes before that happens?
I have mixed feelings on all this - I see that there are problems, but am not fully convinced that the majority of them won't be fixed with a little time and a little faith in the good will of editors. I'm not saying we ignore things until they go away, just that a proactive solution may give disputes an emphasis that might be harmful - maybe without intervention the eventualist approach will work in a lot of cases.
But that said, I realise we are in a whole new situation with the growing Wikipedia, and maybe what worked a year ago won't do so nowadays. And content does seem to be the key issue in many disputes that we have looked at recently.
--sannse
Well, that may be the case, but those being disadvantaged in content cases are always going to claim such a committee is taking sides. How exactly do you plan to bring together an impartial team to judge such things.
Take for example the school issue. It's been dragging for a long time, but I don't think making a decision can be reached at the moment which both sides can be content with.
How would you deal with such a thing?
--Mgm
On 6/5/05, sannse sannse@tiscali.co.uk wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
That's what we do at the moment, look at the conduct and leave the content to work itself out. The question is whether we are missing the underlying problem by doing this. Are we missing the frustrations that /lead/ to good people loosing their temper and acting badly? And would it be better for there to be some other means, outside of the AC, to solve these content disputes before that happens?
I have mixed feelings on all this - I see that there are problems, but am not fully convinced that the majority of them won't be fixed with a little time and a little faith in the good will of editors. I'm not saying we ignore things until they go away, just that a proactive solution may give disputes an emphasis that might be harmful - maybe without intervention the eventualist approach will work in a lot of cases.
But that said, I realise we are in a whole new situation with the growing Wikipedia, and maybe what worked a year ago won't do so nowadays. And content does seem to be the key issue in many disputes that we have looked at recently.
--sannse
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
sannse said:
That's what we do at the moment, look at the conduct and leave the content to work itself out. The question is whether we are missing the underlying problem by doing this. Are we missing the frustrations that /lead/ to good people loosing their temper and acting badly? And would it be better for there to be some other means, outside of the AC, to solve these content disputes before that happens?
There are ample means for this. We have talk pages and email addresses. There is the RFC process. If content disputes get out of hand it's because "good" people cannot bring themselves to act like good people.
On Sat, 4 Jun 2005, sannse wrote:
That's what we do at the moment, look at the conduct and leave the content to work itself out. The question is whether we are missing the underlying problem by doing this. Are we missing the frustrations that /lead/ to good people loosing their temper and acting badly? And would it be better for there to be some other means, outside of the AC, to solve these content disputes before that happens?
Much of this conversation has been in generalities over hypothetical examples. One place where some kind of attention to the content would have been useful was [[2004 U.S. Presidential election controversy and irregularities]]. It was placed on VfD twice, currently has about 8 pages under Talk, & is an article that remains *very* controversial to the point that no one except POV-pushers will have anything to do with it. (I would expect after all of that work, something worth submitting to Featured Articles would be at that location.)
The original conflict can be reduced with little difficulty as lying between 2 different opinions about this article:
* There were no irregularities in the election, it's all partisan lies, & it's not important enough for Wikipedia to bother with it * There were irregularities, this is the undeniable evidence, & only a partisan hack would deny it
Not much room for compromise, huh? While I leaned towards the second school of opinion, what troubled me was that it concerned itself with creating a base of Original Research, & not with an NPOV treatment, say:
* There are people who believed that there were irregularities * This is the evidence (news reports, incidents) that convinced them that there were irregularities * This is how the story has been playing out (e.g., recounts in Ohio, Barbara Boxer challenging the results in Ohio in January of this year, etc.)
I feel that this article should have been written this way because if my understanding is someday proven wrong, the materials need to be there to show later generations why people thought it was true. On the other hand, if history does prove that the election was stolen, then what Wikipedia then needs in this article is not proof that it happened, but an explanation of how the truth was suppressed. And an NPOV approach would best meet both of these needs.
And that is why I believe that the ArbCom should consider in cases like this that they appoint an uninvolved experienced Wikipedian -- say someone who has written Featured Articles (preferrably those not dealing with politics) -- to insist on things like No original research, & Cite sources, & other guidelines formulated to improve Wikipedia.
I have mixed feelings on all this - I see that there are problems, but am not fully convinced that the majority of them won't be fixed with a little time and a little faith in the good will of editors. I'm not saying we ignore things until they go away, just that a proactive solution may give disputes an emphasis that might be harmful - maybe without intervention the eventualist approach will work in a lot of cases.
Given enough time, any controversy will come to an end -- if for no other reason than the participants will all be dead. And if we don't have a date for Wikipedia 1.0, then we can afford to let these controversies rage on with a minimum of intervention.
But that said, I realise we are in a whole new situation with the growing Wikipedia, and maybe what worked a year ago won't do so nowadays. And content does seem to be the key issue in many disputes that we have looked at recently.
I agree with sannse about this: the POV-pushers have gotten craftier as Wikipedia matures. It used to be that our greatest worry was cult-like groups who had the funds to advocate their POV everywhere, & would not compromise; however, the more like a cult these groups were, the more rigid was their embrace of specific strategems.[*]
However, the new batch of POV-pushers are more likely to manuever their opponents into violating Wikipedia guidelines & thereby letting the ArbCom do their work. While I have confidence that the current membership of the ArbCom won't be fooled by these tactics, I keep wondering how long we can go until one group finds the magic key that allows them to get their POV included -- to the excusion of all of their rivals.
But I admit, I do have a persistent streak of pessimism in how I view everything I care about.
Geoff
[*] The Church of Scientology is the example that I have in mind here. Wikipedia has not been the target of a CoS campaign, most likely, because their vaunted cash box has been depleted over the years by bad investments, embezzlements, the usual gouging from investment houses, & fighting critics on the Internet. Add to that the poor public image the CoS has & their usual turn-over rate in that disfunctional organization, & it's no surprise that they'd rather ignore something like Wikipedia than directly confront it.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050605 08:13]:
Don't judge the content, but the user conduct. If people keep editing without discussing it and trying to reach common ground, you can take the case because of conduct. It's the controversial cases in which large numbers of people disagree that are the problem. Unfortunately, those take time, and can't be properly handled by a small group of people (they're probably divided on it themselves).
For an example, check the WMC vs Cortonin case. Can content be decided by which side explodes in frustration first? I submit that this may not be the best of ideas.
A lot of it is that the AC has been too effective; so people start dealing with others as problems to be dealt with, with the AC at the end of the process. This is not a good attitude either.
- d.
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
For an example, check the WMC vs Cortonin case. Can content be decided by which side explodes in frustration first? I submit that this may not be the best of ideas.
A lot of it is that the AC has been too effective; so people start dealing with others as problems to be dealt with, with the AC at the end of the process. This is not a good attitude either.
I don't really have anything to add here because David made his point here so clearly. I think this is a really important perspective. We come here to write an encyclopedia, not to politic.
Thanks David.
On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
For an example, check the WMC vs Cortonin case. Can content be decided by which side explodes in frustration first? > >I submit that this may not be the best of ideas.
A lot of it is that the AC has been too effective; so people start dealing with others as problems to be dealt with, with the AC at the end of the process. This is not a good attitude either.
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
The point is that it didn't work before, and there's been no idea of how to fix the issue that ruined things before - that none of us are trained mediators, and most of us simply did not have the skills to bring antagonistic, warring parties together. We'd all like a mediation committee that worked, but wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
-- ambi
I agree with this. Successful mediation is a lot more than saying "Let's all get along." There are techniques which professional mediators are trained in and experience helps. It is very much an art which requires talent. It can work, but it will require patient recruiting of trained skilled people as well as development of skills within those presently involved. I think it can work out well for those involved as skills developed here can be transfered to real life employment opportunities.
Fred
On Jun 5, 2005, at 4:35 AM, Rebecca wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
The point is that it didn't work before, and there's been no idea of how to fix the issue that ruined things before - that none of us are trained mediators, and most of us simply did not have the skills to bring antagonistic, warring parties together. We'd all like a mediation committee that worked, but wishing doesn't necessarily make it so.
-- ambi _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050605 17:52]:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Mediation is good, but it's hard to make mediation into a part of a formal process. [[WP:TINMC]] being officially unofficial is probably the right approach, for example.
- d.
David Gerard a écrit:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm (macgyvermagic@gmail.com) [050605 17:52]:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Mediation is good, but it's hard to make mediation into a part of a formal process. [[WP:TINMC]] being officially unofficial is probably the right approach, for example.
- d.
Agreed. Ant
MacGyverMagic/Mgm a écrit:
On 6/5/05, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/4/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
For an example, check the WMC vs Cortonin case. Can content be decided by which side explodes in frustration first? > >I submit that this may not be the best of ideas.
A lot of it is that the AC has been too effective; so people start dealing with others as problems to be dealt with, with the AC at the end of the process. This is not a good attitude either.
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
--Mgm
I think the main issue with the MC is somehow its bureaucratic level. I realise now that an issue is more likely to be resolved amiably when
* it is quickly handled, before the escalation occur and anger gets so high editors are no more willing to compromise. The necessity of having to make an official request, then wait with no one stepping is very detrimental to the whole process. I think it works better when editors contact directly a person.
* people know and feel confortable to the one they are asking help. And... that is a bit unfortunate to say, but I fear this is true : they like the person to have a sort of authority. They come to the mediator thinking the mediator can make the decision for them... and it may be the mediator job to make it happen that the editors themselves come to the agreement.
If Linuxbeak is reading this, I think he will understand what I mean. I think he asked help of an "arbitrator" to resolve his tripartite problem between himself, the community and the CAP. But in the end, all what I did is just to talk with him, clarify certain things, suggested solutions... However, He made the decision himself. So, it was only the job of a mediator/facilitator after all.
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Absolutely. Many people see mediation as only an annoying formality to skirt around before going to ArbCom. Mediation needs to be seen as an end in itself.
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Absolutely. Many people see mediation as only an annoying formality to skirt around before going to ArbCom. Mediation needs to be seen as an end in itself.
And an uncooperative attitude in mediation could be a factor in an arbitration decision.
Ec
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Absolutely. Many people see mediation as only an annoying formality to skirt around before going to ArbCom. Mediation needs to be seen as an end in itself.
And an uncooperative attitude in mediation could be a factor in an arbitration decision.
Ec
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
I think we'd find mediation was suddenly much more effective.
I've been reading people's comments and sounding out the MC. People *want* to make it work, and there's some clear ideas that people want to try - such as assigning cases. Yes I can see there's potential problems with that but the current method is very broken - why don't we just try it and see what happens? We may find that this debate over a 'content committee' (concom?! :-) ) is rendered moot.
So let's make it happen and see what the result is.
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
--- Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
Generally, I think it's not a bad. It would make for a terrible absolute rule, though - as there's always going to be cases that will need to head straight for arbitration, just as there will always be rulelawyers who will try to stall that if they realise it is coming by "seeking mediation" in bad faith first. I've seen it before; it'll happen again, I'm sure.
Now, Dan,
On 6/7/05, Dan Grey dangrey101@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
I think we'd find mediation was suddenly much more effective.
I've been reading people's comments and sounding out the MC. People *want* to make it work, and there's some clear ideas that people want to try - such as assigning cases. Yes I can see there's potential problems with that but the current method is very broken - why don't we just try it and see what happens? We may find that this debate over a 'content committee' (concom?! :-) ) is rendered moot.
So let's make it happen and see what the result is.
We're just throwing ideas out there at the moment - reviving the mediation committee is one, a content committee is another, and there's quite a few that you haven't mentioned. *If* the mediation committee is brought back, we need to have a clear idea of what we're going to do about it - and I'm a bit confused by your statement about "assigning cases" (it sounds like exactly what we did before).
-- ambi
If Arb Com gains when it refuse to hear a dispute between parties who can't show where they have tried to find common ground.
Some would consider the time taken for an extra step to be a loss. But there's nothing wrong with a little patience.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stephen Bain wrote:
On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
Absolutely. Many people see mediation as only an annoying formality to skirt around before going to ArbCom. Mediation needs to be seen as an end in itself.
And an uncooperative attitude in mediation could be a factor in an arbitration decision.
Ec
Fred Bauder a écrit:
Suppose we did require cooperation with mediation and consider how the user conducted themselves and sanction those who don't cooperate. What do we gain, what do we lose?
Fred
I would be happy to have a legal person give his opinion here.
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation. I am a little dubious of the deep underlying significance of being punished for refusing mediation when in conflict. I also fear "refusing cooperation" in mediation would have to be a decision of the mediator... which implies a loss of neutrality... as well as requires a mandatory report of the mediator to the arbcom... possibly fueling a bad relationship between the mediator and the people in conflict. Since the relationship should be first based in confidence, I am perplex of the implications it might result to.
If this is done, I hope mediators will not be *required* necessarily to report on the mediation outcome and details of cooperation or non cooperation, but that it will be at least a choice.
Ant
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
I would be happy to have a legal person give his opinion here.
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation. I am a little dubious of the deep underlying significance of being punished for refusing mediation when in conflict. I also fear "refusing cooperation" in mediation would have to be a decision of the mediator... which implies a loss of neutrality... as well as requires a mandatory report of the mediator to the arbcom... possibly fueling a bad relationship between the mediator and the people in conflict. Since the relationship should be first based in confidence, I am perplex of the implications it might result to.
In contract law (at least in Australia, and I think in the United States too) courts will find that parties have a duty to negotiate in good faith. This is somewhat of a nebulous concept, but essentially what it requires is that the parties demonstrate a genuine, honest attempt to negotiate fruitfully with other parties. They aren't required to concede any ground, or act contrary to their interests, just participate honestly.
This would be the obligation facing a party to compulsory mediation, to at least attempt to negotiate an outcome, and at least be open to resolving the dispute.
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation.
I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on my request). The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation. Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the report. (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the other we agreed on nothing.) I think it's important that those acting as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if anything, during the mediation. If either party refuses to mediate in good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining why.
Kelly
What I am suggesting, not necessarily advocating, is to take into consideration at the arbitration stage whether the user engaged in mediation in good faith. If they just messed around and stalled (or whatever) that would be reported and considered. The theory, basically is that if they have energy to repeatedly revert in order to get their way with respect to an article, they should also have the time and energy to discuss the matter in good faith or they ought to lose the privilege of editing.
Fred
On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation.
I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on my request). The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation. Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the report. (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the other we agreed on nothing.) I think it's important that those acting as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if anything, during the mediation. If either party refuses to mediate in good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining why.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/9/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
What I am suggesting, not necessarily advocating, is to take into consideration at the arbitration stage whether the user engaged in mediation in good faith. If they just messed around and stalled (or whatever) that would be reported and considered. The theory, basically is that if they have energy to repeatedly revert in order to get their way with respect to an article, they should also have the time and energy to discuss the matter in good faith or they ought to lose the privilege of editing.
Fred
On Jun 8, 2005, at 8:50 AM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
Yes, you said it much better than I did.
I'm all for keeping some things private. But how can we avoid people actively avoiding mediation so they can keep POV pushing. If someone isn't willing to mediate in good faith, I think that should be reportable. How is keeping such a thing confident helping the community?
--Mgm
On 6/8/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation.
I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on my request). The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation. Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the report. (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the other we agreed on nothing.) I think it's important that those acting as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if anything, during the mediation. If either party refuses to mediate in good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining why.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/7/05, Anthere anthere9@yahoo.com wrote:
In real life, mediation is essentially a choice, not a requirement/obligation.
I've been in mandatory mediation twice (once on a court order, once on my request). The mediator, in both cases, had only the authority to report on what agreement, if any, was reached during the mediation. Matters discussed but not agreed upon would not be included in the report. (In one case, we agreed on most, but not all issues; in the other we agreed on nothing.) I think it's important that those acting as mediators keep the bulk of the mediation in confidence, reporting only that mediation occurred and on what was actually agreed upon, if anything, during the mediation. If either party refuses to mediate in good faith, then the mediator should simply bring mediations to a close and report back that no agreement was reached without explaining why.
Although I largely agree with you, when only one of the parties is clearly not negotiating in good faith that should be made clear in the report. This does not mean that this should be explained in great detail.
Ec
Mark Pellegrini wrote:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
My immediate impression is that having a committee rule on content would be ruinous. Successful NPOV depends on people finding common ground even when that may be very difficult.
Committee decisions on content will only please those who like to suck on frozen truthsicles.
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
My immediate impression is that having a committee rule on content would be ruinous. Successful NPOV depends on people finding common ground even when that may be very difficult.
It is not the place for the ArbCom to say things like 'human-caused global warming is real' but it *is* the place of the ArbCom to say that a certain user has violated our content-related policies (like NPOV or NOR) while editing such an article.
We have done this before and will do it again. The only question is: *Do we continue to only apply this to the most obvious cases or do we try to enforce our content-related policies with the same rigor as we do our purely behavioral ones?
-- mav
__________________________________ Yahoo! Mail Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour: http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
Mark Pellegrini:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
I will state here for the record that I'm strongly opposed to any content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead. This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't destroy the village in order to save it.
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
I will state here for the record that I'm strongly opposed to any content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
The ArbCom already tries to enforce our content-related policies. What I'd like to do is have subject-area subcommittees to consult when alleged violations of our content-related polices like NPOV or NOR come before us (the ArbCom). As it is, only the most blatant POV and original research-pushing people are sanctioned due to the simple fact that the ArbCom does not know everything about everything and thus can't spot more subtle violations of our content-related polices. We have tried, but this results in cases that take months and inadequate remedies.
Here is my proposal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alternat...
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Daniel:
The ArbCom already tries to enforce our content-related policies. What I'd like to do is have subject-area subcommittees to consult when alleged violations of our content-related polices like NPOV or NOR come before us (the ArbCom). As it is, only the most blatant POV and original research-pushing people are sanctioned due to the simple fact that the ArbCom does not know everything about everything and thus can't spot more subtle violations of our content-related polices. We have tried, but this results in cases that take months and inadequate remedies.
I understand that this is frustrating, and it is commendable that you are looking for a solution; this shows that you are indeed worthy arbitrators -- people of action constantly looking for ways to deal with the problems we face. However, I believe that you, Mark and other arbitrators are examining the problem *only* from your point of view as arbitrators. This is an unnecessary limitation of perspective. I think there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.
Now that you have so cogently pointed out the problem -- it's possible to wage "wars of attrition" over articles, and the person first to explode or give up is likely to lose -- I would like us to look together for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us down the road of credentialism and hierarchy. Institutions like the ArbCom, even admins, blocks, page protection, deletion -- these are not perfect and deserve to be questioned and reconsidered. http://usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?DevolvePower is worth a read.
Best,
Erik
--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
... However, I believe that you, Mark and other arbitrators are examining the problem *only* from your point of view as arbitrators. This is an unnecessary limitation of perspective. I think there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.
The possibility of error and corruption always exists whenever you include humans in a process. But increasing the number of vetted people involved will tend to decrease this possibility, no? The ArbCom already hears cases that involve violations of our content-related policies. Making it easier for them to cut through subtle POV and original research will be make that body work more effectively in making sure our content-related polices are followed.
I don't feel that I have proposed anything that would increase the possibility of corruption and error. In fact, I feel I have made a proposal that would decrease this possibility for the current ArbCom. Other approaches can and should also be explored, but I do think what I've proposed can be part of the solution.
Now that you have so cogently pointed out the problem -- it's possible to wage "wars of attrition" over articles, and the person first to explode or give up is likely to lose --
Yep - this is exactly the problem. Bad behavior is bad no matter how factually correct and content policy-adhering your edits are and there should be consequences for that. *But* being factually correct and more closely adhering to our content policies should mitigate any remedy against a user while persistently not doing that should multiply any remedy against another user.
If we are serious about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia first and a wiki community second, then we must take some stance similar to that. Yet, factually correctness and how closely something follows our content policies is not something the ArbCom by itself is competent to determine except in the most obvious of cases (which are much fewer and further between now). Thus my idea of having various bodies we could consult on content-related matters.
I would like us to look together for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us down the road of credentialism and hierarchy.
I fail to see how having a consultive body to the ArbCom would do that. They would not have any power of their own and there will be checks and balances. I'd just like to be able to ask groups of respected and vetted users who have demonstrated some competence in certain areas questions from time to time as needed.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 6/8/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
I would like us to look together for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us down the road of credentialism and hierarchy.
I fail to see how having a consultive body to the ArbCom would do that. They would not have any power of their own and there will be checks and balances. I'd just like to be able to ask groups of respected and vetted users who have demonstrated some competence in certain areas questions from time to time as needed.
You still end up with at least some level of credentialism because users would presumably have to prove their credentials before being admitted to the consultative body.
--- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
You still end up with at least some level of credentialism because users would presumably have to prove their credentials before being admitted to the consultative body.
Most often that will be to list a bunch of articles in the relevant field that they have substantially contributed to. Only if that person does not edit much in an area would they need to present anything that would normally be considered 'credentials.'
-- mav
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html
Erik Moeller wrote:
I think there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.
And I think it is a serious mistake to suggest that his approach is not "community-based".
"Community-based" means a lot more than "hold a vote".
--Jimbo
Jimmy Wales:
"Community-based" means a lot more than "hold a vote".
Absolutely. A vote must only be held under very rigid, community-centric conditions which require and reward rational discourse and consensus seeking. That is to say, the current practice of holding votes willy-nilly if you can get away with it needs to be stopped, and a proper framework should be developed instead that is compatible with our highest ideals.
Erik
Erik Moeller (erik_moeller@gmx.de) [050613 12:17]:
That is to say, the current practice of holding votes willy-nilly if you can get away with it
That is a stunningly accurate description of how it actually seems to occur on en:, yes.
needs to be stopped, and a proper framework should be developed instead that is compatible with our highest ideals.
I'm not quite sure how. Requiring all straw polls to be registered?
- d.
Sounds like a very good idea, I thought that was already policy...
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 6/15/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Erik Moeller (erik_moeller@gmx.de) [050613 12:17]:
That is to say, the current practice of holding votes willy-nilly if you can get away with it
That is a stunningly accurate description of how it actually seems to occur on en:, yes.
needs to be stopped, and a proper framework should be developed instead that is compatible with our highest ideals.
I'm not quite sure how. Requiring all straw polls to be registered?
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 6/17/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like a very good idea, I thought that was already policy...
Jack (Sam Spade)
No. Formal surveys have to registed. Straw polls don't have to be.
Please unsubscribe me from this list. Ta.
<html><DIV></DIV><!-- START MESSAGE AFTER THIS LINE--> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV><!-- END YOUR MAIL MESSAGE BEFORE THIS LINE--> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <P><A href="http://www.flamingtext.com/hmail.html" target=_top><IMG alt="Image by FlamingText.com" border=0 src="http://hmail.flamingtext.com/hmail/2003/02/26/flamingtext_com_1046303126_32377.gif"></A> <DIV></DIV><BR>Image by <A href="http://www.flamingtext.com/hmail2.html">FlamingText.com</A> <DIV></DIV> <DIV></DIV></html>
<br><br><br>>From: geni <geniice@gmail.com><br>>Reply-To: geni <geniice@gmail.com>,English Wikipedia <wikien-l@Wikipedia.org><br>>To: Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch@gmail.com>,English Wikipedia <wikien-l@wikipedia.org><br>>Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment<br>>Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:22:43 +0100<br>><br>>On 6/17/05, Jack Lynch <jack.i.lynch@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> > Sounds like a very good idea, I thought that was already policy...<br>> ><br>> > Jack (Sam Spade)<br>> ><br>><br>>No. Formal surveys have to registed. Straw polls don't have to be.<br>><br>>--<br>>geni<br>>_______________________________________________<br>>WikiEN-l mailing list<br>>WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org<br>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l<br>
Jack Lynch (jack.i.lynch@gmail.com) [050618 04:43]:
On 6/15/05, David Gerard fun@thingy.apana.org.au wrote:
Erik Moeller (erik_moeller@gmx.de) [050613 12:17]:
That is to say, the current practice of holding votes willy-nilly if you can get away with it
That is a stunningly accurate description of how it actually seems to occur on en:, yes.
needs to be stopped, and a proper framework should be developed instead that is compatible with our highest ideals.
I'm not quite sure how. Requiring all straw polls to be registered?
Sounds like a very good idea, I thought that was already policy...
Not that I know of. I'm not sure how to make it work either.
- d.
Daniel Mayer wrote:
The ArbCom already tries to enforce our content-related policies. What I'd like to do is have subject-area subcommittees to consult when alleged violations of our content-related polices like NPOV or NOR come before us (the ArbCom). As it is, only the most blatant POV and original research-pushing people are sanctioned due to the simple fact that the ArbCom does not know everything about everything and thus can't spot more subtle violations of our content-related polices. We have tried, but this results in cases that take months and inadequate remedies.
I think this is exactly right.
I have not yet had a change to read the exact proposals, but I think it is clear that in many cases, subject-area expertise has to be introduced into our disciplinary processes in a more systematic way.
--Jimbo
On 6/7/05, Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Mark Pellegrini:
The Arbitration Committee is seeking public commentary and suggestions pertaining to an ongoing problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC
I will state here for the record that I'm strongly opposed to any content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead. This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't destroy the village in order to save it.
Erik _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I never understood why so many people oppose votes. It's an easy way to see how the land lies and what the general opinion is. In my opinion that's helpful.
--Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
I never understood why so many people oppose votes. It's an easy way to see how the land lies and what the general opinion is. In my opinion that's helpful.
A lot of people, including me, would draw a distinction between a "vote" and a "poll". A "vote" is generally considered to be binding in some fashion, whereas a "poll" is a means of generating consensus because as you put it so well, it helps us to "see how the land lies and what the general opinion is".
Erik's proposal to have a binding community vote to determine what articles should say is one which I will never support.
That is not to say that polls/votes can't play any role in the process, nor is it to say that we don't need to advance the state of the art in dealing with such cases. But introducing binding votes destroys some of what is most essential about the interaction between the wiki process and the generation of high quality neutral content.
--Jimbo
Jimmy:
That is not to say that polls/votes can't play any role in the process, nor is it to say that we don't need to advance the state of the art in dealing with such cases. But introducing binding votes destroys some of what is most essential about the interaction between the wiki process and the generation of high quality neutral content.
What we have here is a belief. I would like to see some arguments in support of that belief. "Binding vote" doesn't mean "cannot ever be questioned for all eternity." But there should be good reasons for doing so. And when you define these conditions and processes, the distinction between votes and polls becomes less clear, and what you think is "something you will never support" might actually turn out to be something you already support, albeit in a less formally defined manner.
Erik
Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimmy:
That is not to say that polls/votes can't play any role in the process, nor is it to say that we don't need to advance the state of the art in dealing with such cases. But introducing binding votes destroys some of what is most essential about the interaction between the wiki process and the generation of high quality neutral content.
What we have here is a belief. I would like to see some arguments in support of that belief. "Binding vote" doesn't mean "cannot ever be questioned for all eternity." But there should be good reasons for doing so. And when you define these conditions and processes, the distinction between votes and polls becomes less clear, and what you think is "something you will never support" might actually turn out to be something you already support, albeit in a less formally defined manner.
When votes are frequent enough people soon lose track of which ones are important. The distinction between a binding vote on major policy, and a casual poll of personal preferences tend to get lost. We have _Votes_ for Deletion; we have votes whenever someone wants to become a sysop, etc., etc. A vote was announced on the AD/CE issue, but when I followed the annoucement about that I found out that the vote would not begin for a few days. I have no idea about the level of officialdom that would apply to that, and I can't spend all my wiki time looking for places to exercise my franchise. What charecterizes an important vote besides the fact that the person who starts the process says that it is.
Ec
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Erik Moeller wrote:
As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead. This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't destroy the village in order to save it.
Voting only works if the losing side accepts the result & concedes defeat. Politians who win elections are wise to keep that in mind, & should always make an effort to at least refrain from antagonizing the losing side any further.
Voting on Wikipedia to settle issues won't work because the opposing sides are usually so certain that their opinion is the right one, that they will not accept an adverse result from a vote. That any vote on Wikipedia has settled a conflict is a miracle, & proof that the people involved acted in good faith & with a lot of WikiLove.
Geoff
Geoff Burling:
Voting on Wikipedia to settle issues won't work because the opposing sides are usually so certain that their opinion is the right one, that they will not accept an adverse result from a vote.
You're describing the current situation where there is no defined decision making process on equal footing with our other core policies. If one could say "This vote was held in accordance with the rules on voting in content disputes", then anyone who acts against it without good reason (e.g. fundamentally new information or arguments that would justify a new discussion) would be in violation of policy, and the traditional means of enforcing good conduct would apply.
The tricky part is to define a policy that does not have a negative impact on our traditional consensus finding processes. There are good reasons why many people are skeptical about voting: - sock puppetry - voting before discussion - voting with options that influence the results - voting with overly complicated or flawed methods - voting without a way to ever question the result etc.
However, an anti-voting dogma exacerbates the problem because it leads to the aforementioned club-like structures that will always be susceptible to long-term corruption, and because voting, where it *does* occur, cannot happen according to a standardized, tried and tested set of rules; instead, the same mistakes are repeated again and again, and nobody knows when a vote should be considered binding or not. Any relatively new user can be easily intimidated with a vote, while someone more familiar with our processes can easily question it. This is an undesirable imbalance.
Erik