--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content. My main reason is that no committee should have too much power. This is a structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a good idea. This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral issues. Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.
Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is* already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in general.
It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through this proposed committee for another.
-- mav
__________________________________ Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/
Daniel Mayer wrote
It would be absurd to put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and
through
this proposed committee for another.
Yes, double jeopardy is not so good, viewed in the light of natural justice.
If it turns out that expertise in editing behaviour is fairly much a unitary thing (as seems quite plausible), while expertise in evaluating content is more decentralised, then some less tidy or hybrid system may have to be the long-term answer, I suppose.
Charles
Daniel Mayer wrote:
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content. My main reason is that no committee should have too much power. This is a structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a good idea. This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral issues. Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.
Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is* already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in general.
It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through this proposed committee for another.
I don't think that what Steven and 172 are getting at is the question of behaviour or offenses. If that were the case I would be more inclined to agree with you. Let's suppose that the ArbCom is seized of an issue involving content, and they make some decision about the parties involved. There may even be all around agreement that they have made the right decision about these people, but we still have the article to deal with. The NPOV rating of the article must remain independent of the participating contributors, because it is what must remain after the warring editors are all gone.
Ec