Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:
"There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be more aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue."
It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies, especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research, Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).
Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility, particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly, many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an encyclopedia whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older members put together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.
A second arbitration mechanism would not threaten the influence of a single editor. It would only serve to bolster public faith in Wikipedia content among those skeptical of the project due to the present lack of a professionalized system of editorial review, giving more meaning to the work of all involved in the project. In the end, everyone involved in Wikipedia would have more real influence. By boosting capacity, Wikipedia governance would also be more responsive and efficient when it comes to dealing with the interests of serious editors.
-172
_________________________________________________________________ Dont just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
On Mon, Mar 07, 2005 at 11:13:37PM +0000, Abe Sokolov wrote:
Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.
A lack of credibility is not a problem that Wikipedia currently has. Indeed, Wikipedia's credibility is if anything on the rise, as more people have heard of it through the media, academic discussions, and so on. Remember that we started from zero, not from Britannica; and thus that everything we have built in terms of credibility is a long step up from the -nothing- that many assumed Wikipedia could accomplish.
What's more, greater credibility will not come by establishing more and more arcane policies and procedures, making a greater bureaucratic hassle of the project. It will, rather, come through the production and presentation of high-quality articles. The Featured Articles project has a great deal more to say about Wikipedia's credibility than the Arbitration Committee. The former is a way of presenting our very best work; the latter is simply a tool to help fend off the worst vandals, liars, harassers, and persistent abusers of power.
It is unfortunate, but true, that bad news gets more coverage than good, and that people can get more attention and name-recognition within the project by mistreating others and breaking things than by producing good material. Thankfully this does not have to the image that Wikipedia presents to the world. The excellent front page material, the featured articles, and other mechanisms that promote excellent work are what give Wikipedia its credibility -- and all the trolls, POV-pushers, and other abusers are not going to degrade that.