I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall. Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing. Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
The only real solutions are: 1. to recruit more intelligent, reasonable editors by offering a welcoming, respectful community atmosphere, 2. to cite our sources more thoroughly and properly, and let the reader decide their individual credibility 3. to recruit as many editors as possible to make use of the watchlist feature for each contended article 4. to use NPOV tags and their derivatives to warn readers of disagreements over content.
Our mistakes at this time may be not giving the readers a full sense of just how much disputed Wikipedia articles can change over short time periods, and not making clear enough just what NPOV means.
Perhaps we need a stronger, more explicit NPOV tag, or variants thereof, for some articles. We could also make it more clear that our readers can browse the history of any article to gain insight by reviewing its creation process. We can also slow the process of the change even more, to encourage a more thoughtful process, like was done with the introduction of the 3 revert rule, and like is done every day with temporary edit locks.
But attempting to vet content through a review board of any kind is folly for a wiki encyclopedia. The active community IS the review board on a wiki.
The only oversight that is proper is that which is necessary to ensure that everyone participates fairly and generally on equal terms according to behavior rules.
Michael Turley User:Unfocused
_______________________________________________ No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
I agree completely with this. Content decisions should be made by the widest group possible. That is the fundamental nature of wiki.
On 6/9/05, michaelturley@myway.com michaelturley@myway.com wrote:
I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall. Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing. Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
The only real solutions are:
- to recruit more intelligent, reasonable editors by offering a welcoming, respectful community atmosphere,
- to cite our sources more thoroughly and properly, and let the reader decide their individual credibility
- to recruit as many editors as possible to make use of the watchlist feature for each contended article
- to use NPOV tags and their derivatives to warn readers of disagreements over content.
Our mistakes at this time may be not giving the readers a full sense of just how much disputed Wikipedia articles can change over short time periods, and not making clear enough just what NPOV means.
Perhaps we need a stronger, more explicit NPOV tag, or variants thereof, for some articles. We could also make it more clear that our readers can browse the history of any article to gain insight by reviewing its creation process. We can also slow the process of the change even more, to encourage a more thoughtful process, like was done with the introduction of the 3 revert rule, and like is done every day with temporary edit locks.
But attempting to vet content through a review board of any kind is folly for a wiki encyclopedia. The active community IS the review board on a wiki.
The only oversight that is proper is that which is necessary to ensure that everyone participates fairly and generally on equal terms according to behavior rules.
Michael Turley User:Unfocused
No banners. No pop-ups. No kidding. Make My Way your home on the Web - http://www.myway.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
I agree completely with this. Content decisions should be made by the widest group possible. That is the fundamental nature of wiki.
Isn't the problem users not following WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V? And what to do about them?
Mav's idea of finding people who have a good understanding of a field, who then assess a disputed article in the light of those three core policies and report to the Arbcom (that's right, yeah Mav?) is growing on me, despite some issues, as a 'last resort'.
However I think the _first_ intervention should be mediation, explaining those policies and educating users (who simply may not be aware of them) where needed. That can be done by 'amatuer' mediators like myself responding to RfCs and 3Os, or by 'official' mediators such as a revived Medcom.
But I suppose that's just not going to work everytime, and we perhaps need a final, binding, resolution process.
Dan
___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On 6/9/05, michaelturley@myway.com michaelturley@myway.com wrote:
I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall. Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing. Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
The only real solutions are:
- to recruit more intelligent, reasonable editors by offering a welcoming, respectful community atmosphere,
- to cite our sources more thoroughly and properly, and let the reader decide their individual credibility
- to recruit as many editors as possible to make use of the watchlist feature for each contended article
- to use NPOV tags and their derivatives to warn readers of disagreements over content.
Our mistakes at this time may be not giving the readers a full sense of just how much disputed Wikipedia articles can change over short time periods, and not making clear enough just what NPOV means.
Perhaps we need a stronger, more explicit NPOV tag, or variants thereof, for some articles. We could also make it more clear that our readers can browse the history of any article to gain insight by reviewing its creation process. We can also slow the process of the change even more, to encourage a more thoughtful process, like was done with the introduction of the 3 revert rule, and like is done every day with temporary edit locks.
But attempting to vet content through a review board of any kind is folly for a wiki encyclopedia. The active community IS the review board on a wiki.
The only oversight that is proper is that which is necessary to ensure that everyone participates fairly and generally on equal terms according to behavior rules.
Michael Turley User:Unfocused
With all respect, I think you're missing the point. Firstly, I don't believe anyone - in all the different proposals - has endorsed any form of committee that would endorse a particular revision of an article, making that point entirely redundant. But I also think this debate over a review committee is beside the issue.
The problem is that we have a whole bunch of cases that are currently being heard by the arbitration committee - such as the climate change dispute, which *do* need to be dealt with, but why I - and others - believe shouldn't be dealt with by a system of paroles, bans, limitations and punishment. What Unfocused suggests is effectively just the status quo - which, in my book, is going to see good editors leave because we end up having to limit their editing rights instead of solving the blasted dispute, once it has gone on for long enough.
I'm *not* necessarily in favour of any form of content committee - in fact, I think it's probably the wrong way to go about it - partly for the reasons Unfocused mentions. There *are* alternatives, however - and I urge those reading to help us out in determining how we might get around this one. Attacking a system that nobody's suggested and nobody wants really doesn't help anyone much.
-- ambi
--- Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that we have a whole bunch of cases that are currently being heard by the arbitration committee - such as the climate change dispute, which *do* need to be dealt with, but why I - and others - believe shouldn't be dealt with by a system of paroles, bans, limitations and punishment. What Unfocused suggests is effectively just the status quo - which, in my book, is going to see good editors leave because we end up having to limit their editing rights instead of solving the blasted dispute, once it has gone on for long enough.
Exactly. All I want are groups of people that the ArbCom can consult to help it determine just who is and is not following our content-related policies like NPOV and NOR. Going back to an old example; I simply don't know enough about advanced mathematics to know if a person is pushing a POV in that area or is engaging in original research except in the most blatant of cases. It would help arbitration a great deal if the ArbCom could ask a panel of non-involved and vetted users who *could* tell one way or the other.
Thus my idea: 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
On 6/10/05, Daniel Mayer maveric149@yahoo.com wrote:
Exactly. All I want are groups of people that the ArbCom can consult to help it determine just who is and is not following our content-related policies like NPOV and NOR. Going back to an old example; I simply don't know enough about advanced mathematics to know if a person is pushing a POV in that area or is engaging in original research except in the most blatant of cases. It would help arbitration a great deal if the ArbCom could ask a panel of non-involved and vetted users who *could* tell one way or the other.
You mistake what I'm saying. Take the climate change dispute as an example. We *could* solve the dispute by getting in an advisory committee to tell us who is pushing a POV (which would indeed be helpful as we currently do things); but we would still be having to resolve the dispute - even though it involves some long-standing and generally perfectly good contributors - with punitive measures. It's this that I really don't like - I maintain that unless someone is a serious pest, we shouldn't be hearing their case in the first place.
-- ambi
Daniel Mayer wrote:
Exactly. All I want are groups of people that the ArbCom can consult to help it determine just who is and is not following our content-related policies like NPOV and NOR. Going back to an old example; I simply don't know enough about advanced mathematics to know if a person is pushing a POV in that area or is engaging in original research except in the most blatant of cases. It would help arbitration a great deal if the ArbCom could ask a panel of non-involved and vetted users who *could* tell one way or the other.
I think this is very well stated.
--Jimbo
michaelturley@myway.com (michaelturley@myway.com) [050609 14:47]:
I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content. Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall. Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing. Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
Mediation is between the disputing editors; that can work well on a per-conflict basis. But I agree on the arbitration of content. That's my other concern - when does it get reviewed, if ever?
- d.
Determining an "approved version" of an article is not contemplated under any proposal. What is contemplated is ruling on disputes regarding content which occur from time to time. In most instances resolution will be found by restating the NPOV policy as it applies to the particular matter.
Fred
On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:46 PM, michaelturley@myway.com wrote:
the "approved" version