Okay. I an committed. I will post this.
First off. The whole situation about the mediation committee has two/three nasty connotations.
There is an advertisement with a dog that says: "Do as we like, or the dog dies!"
I (personally) think that the mediation committee is under a similar threat, and for similar reasons.
The truth is that we should not upholdd the mediation committee any longer than it has a practical justification.
The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the butchers with it!!
I personally have no idea why Jimbo qualified me for the mediation committee. Maybe perhaps because to do otherwise would mean that he would have to explain any and all other similar decicions.
I know Angela and Stevertigo from the process of bringing up the cleanup process. My own intent was to improve the process of wikipedia in a manner that would remain an improvement, rather than a shackle on its further developement. I hope I can restrain myself into not playing any part in its further developement.
Geoff (llwyrch) I know not at all.
Sannse (did I misspell the username?) I know even less, except a vague, and I must claim irrelevant impression (no justification, please lambast me if it is crappy; I will be the last person to require definitive determination) that she is a female.
Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I have seen his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...
Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about contributing in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it!
PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to it's developement as a member of it.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit:
Okay. I an committed. I will post this.
This was courageous. I am glad you finally left your silence.
First off. The whole situation about the mediation committee has two/three nasty connotations.
There is an advertisement with a dog that says: "Do as we like, or the dog dies!"
Why ? Anyone is welcome to go on helping resolving conflicts. Ideally, no one should ever reach these two stages. It is also up to you to make it that it never happen. Second, you are also supposed to help build something decent with your own ideas. I am not aware that the committee did not listen to you, since you said nothing, but complain when I tried to fix some pages. I also made comments to your proposal on meta, and you never answered these comments. Is not that a bit easy of you to write such a comment ? How do you expect things to go on and to improve if you stay silent but to criticize ?
I (personally) think that the mediation committee is under a similar threat, and for similar reasons.
The truth is that we should not upholdd the mediation committee any longer than it has a practical justification.
Agreed. But right now, there is justification. So are you talking about a fluttery future ?
The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the butchers with it!!
You do not even give time for the puppy to born...
I personally have no idea why Jimbo qualified me for the mediation committee. Maybe perhaps because to do otherwise would mean that he would have to explain any and all other similar decicions.
I would tend to say because you ask... Did you ask ? But if you want not to have anything to do with that, just say you are not interested. If you want to have something to do with arbitration, just ask for that.
I know Angela and Stevertigo from the process of bringing up the cleanup process. My own intent was to improve the process of wikipedia in a manner that would remain an improvement, rather than a shackle on its further developement. I hope I can restrain myself into not playing any part in its further developement.
? You made a great job on the meta pages. What changed between december and january ? Are you just unhappy because the page about monitoring is not something some of us seem to agree with ? Is that the problem ?
What is the problem ?
Geoff (llwyrch) I know not at all.
It was the perfect opportunity to get to know him :-)
Sannse (did I misspell the username?) I know even less, except a vague, and I must claim irrelevant impression (no justification, please lambast me if it is crappy; I will be the last person to require definitive determination) that she is a female.
Yes, she is.
Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I have seen his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...
You do not see you in a very positive manner.
If you think other people should be part of it, do you suggested them to be ?
Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about contributing in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it!
PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to it's developement as a member of it.
I am currently failing to see how I could not be offended by this statement, as you provide no justification for such a comment. In any cases, you might have noticed that my name was not in the current list. So, feel free to join if this is the main point stopping you. If the developpement of such a project shall be impaired by my presence, I will certainly stop participating in it. I think I gave my reasons for participating to its development, and those who read them should understand the limits it will inherently put. Did you read what I wrote ? If so, what is the sense in what you write here ? Honestly, I do not think you can make such statements without more input. At least to me privately. I think that would be fair.
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
I am sorry you feel so disinchanted
On Tue, 2004-01-20 at 21:20, Anthere wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit: > > Okay. I an committed. I will post this.
This was courageous. I am glad you finally left your silence.
Thank you. I subtly dislike e-mail bc of its lack of immediacy; a BulletinBoard would be much better.
> The puppy has to catch the rabbit, or off to the > butchers with it!!
You do not even give time for the puppy to born...
I think you misunderstand me. What I wrote was quite confusing, looking at it in hindsight. Allow me to clarify...
What I meant was that the whole mediation idea is very much on a trial basis, and can be revoked by Jimbo if it does not pan out. The fact that I _do_ think it will work, does not remove the damoclean sword hanging over the institution.
And the conclusion I want to draw from that, is that we have to make every effort to assure that it does not fail, but is such a wonderful success that it need not, and indeed can not be revoked. Every institution that fails its charter is a millstone around the neck of further attempts at founding such at a later time.
You made a great job on the meta pages. What changed between december and january ? Are you just unhappy because the page about monitoring is not something some of us seem to agree with ? Is that the problem ?
What is the problem ?
There is no problem. The silent observer bit was mostly to lend an enchanced perception of legitimacy to the process, and though extremely useful IMO, is _not_ at all crucial. Such a crucial thing though would be who does the mediation and how they are selected to do it, on which see below.
My latest bout of inactivity was brought on by a juxtaposition of the server problems, and some personal matters which I will not speak on publicly. The major part were the serverproblems, which manifest themself in a much exacerbated form because of the hardware configuration at my end (basically I have a too small box to surf efficiently).
> Uncle Ed; I personally do not trust, even though I have seen > his actions and speech on this forum. To me he is much like > I see myself; an unsolved equation, maybe negative, maybe > positive, maybe the very zero point of the equation...
You do not see you in a very positive manner.
I try to be brutally honest with myself. BTW, let me emphasize that I _don't_ mistrust my or Ed's ability to a good job as a mediator in the cases for which we are suited but, merely, whether we can do so always, and in every case. A big problem with the mediation process, as it stands is that although those users who know the personalities of the mediators, can choose their mediator accordingly, those who do not (e.g. newcomers), are essentially buying a pig in a poke.
(This was a problem BTW, that the proposed silent observer institution would have partially addresssed.)
The ideal situation would be such that we have a group of mediators with which it would be possible to just draw lots for the mediation assignment, and always come up with a winner. This means that the question of who we have on the mediation committee is not totally irrelevant.
> Anthere: I would be much more comfortable about contributing > in the meditiation group, if you were not a member of it! > > PLEASE anthere, think long before getting offended by the > previous sentence! I think you can perform a valuable part > in forming the limitations of the mediation group, but I > honestly don't see that you can offer anything positive to > it's developement as a member of it.
I am currently failing to see how I could not be offended by this statement, as you provide no justification for such a comment. In any cases, you might have noticed that my name was not in the current list. So, feel free to join if this is the main point stopping you. If the developpement of such a project shall be impaired by my presence, I will certainly stop participating in it. I think I gave my reasons for participating to its development, and those who read them should understand the limits it will inherently put.
Okay. In clarification, In _most_emphatically_ endorse your input into the development of the mediation process, without which the institution would be at an even more half-finished state than it is currently. What I meant was just to express plainly that you should not actually be chosen as an actual mediator in any disputes. The justification for this is purely your command of english, and no other factor.
Part of the problem here lies in the unfinished and unclear mandate of the mediation & arbitration committees. Are they to be purely actors in the process of wikipedia editing, or are they eventually to develop organically into political bodies of their own right?
The matter of arbitrators being selected by a vote yearly, would suggest that morphing into a political actor is not totally untenable.
If the mediation committee changes into a political body whose function is not solely to effect acts of mediation, your presence on it would be most valuable, but I personally doubt whether it would be useful for it to thus transform itself.
Did you read what I wrote ? If so, what is the sense in what you write here ? Honestly, I do not think you can make such statements without more input. At least to me privately. I think that would be fair.
I hope the above clarifies my position slightly.
> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
I am sorry you feel so disinchanted
I am sorry if I left you with the impression that I am disenchanted. This is not the case at all. Although the mediation & arbitration process and institutions have had bit of a handbrake start, I am sure the motor will start revving on all cylinders eventually.
With the greatest of respect; as always,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro)
On 20 Jan 2004, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Okay. I an committed. I will post this.
First off. The whole situation about the mediation committee has two/three nasty connotations.
There is an advertisement with a dog that says: "Do as we like, or the dog dies!"
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that the mediation committee is under a death threat, or that people with disagreements must seek mediation?
AFAIK, mediation is entirely voluntary. It's a way to cut thru the misunderstandings & try to communicate with other people.
The only time either mediation or arbitration could be seen as a threat is if a contributor refuses all entreaties to "explain her/his side", & continues with troubling behavior, e.g., blanking certain pages. But since we are supposed to be all working together here on Wikipedia, refusing to talk to the other contributors would seem to be an odd way to behave.
[snip]
I personally have no idea why Jimbo qualified me for the mediation committee. Maybe perhaps because to do otherwise would mean that he would have to explain any and all other similar decicions.
Perhaps he thought you'd be good at mediating?
[snip]
Geoff (llwyrch) I know not at all.
I sent Jimbo a private letter & volunteered for the task. As for knowing me, I have posted to the wiki-EN list a bit, & have stated my opinions on a few Talk: pages.
[snipping a number of evalutations]
I'm not sure there is any reason why we should like each other. It will definitely benefit us all if we act respectfully towards one another, though. The committee is a list of people who are willing to try to keep people talking to each other, to find some kind of common ground, & keep people from engaging in wasteful activities like reversion & edit wars. I would imagine if two people wanted mediation, but with a person who wasn't a member of the committee, that there would be no problem with their choice -- as long as that person was willing to mediate.
Some people won't ever be happy with how things are at Wikipedia. Mediation is (hopefully) a way to address those folks who could be happy here.
Geoff
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote (In part):
Sannse (did I misspell the username?) I know even less, except a vague, and I must claim irrelevant impression (no justification, please lambast me if it is crappy; I will be the last person to require definitive determination) that she is a female.
Gosh, with that build up I thought you were going to say you thought I was an axe murderer! ;)
Yes, as Anthere said, I'm a woman.
I /am/ also rather obscure, partly I think because of my areas of interest and partly because I tend to avoid conflict. I guess joining the mediation committee is risking a big change in the latter area.
Regards
sannse