David Gerard wrote ...
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?
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes. Several people (with some notable exceptions) argued that the ArbCom can handle this, and should. RJII on the Capitalism page was an attempt to take those people at their word, and have the ArbCom handle a content dispute. Fred Bauder seemed to be the only one on the ArbCom to take an interest in this case. Needless to say, after a month or more of arguing and reverts, I and several people simply left the capitalism article, to await an ArbCom decision. Then the ArbCom declared that, since we had left, there was no more conflict, so the situation was resolved!
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to develop another committee or mechanism.
I am repeating something I have said several times in the past. This issue is not new.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein Associate Professor Department of Sociology and Anthropology Bentley Annex Ohio University Athens, Ohio 45701
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050605 22:48]:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
I can tell you now we have no intention of taking on this one as well! Not just the amount of work, but simply that that's not what the AC was put into place for.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to develop another committee or mechanism.
Well, yeah.
There are all sorts of possible problems. Specialist Point Of View is not necessarily Neutral Point Of View. That sort of thing.
I am repeating something I have said several times in the past. This issue is not new.
That's why it's being discussed here as well :-)
- d.
My suggestion is to accept content issues, but appoint committees to research questions which are beyond ordinary competence. If someone is "on the level" they can cite book and page in established references in the field. Inability to do so generally means they are an original researcher or out of touch with the literature. There are some grey areas, for example, most references are in an unusual language, Armenian, for example, but almost all legitimate references can be accessed though an ordinary library with Inter Library Loan, or at a good college library. But you see, by looking at it this way it comes back to a behavior problem, not citing sources or improperly removing information that has been sourced because they don't like the point of view.
Fred
On Jun 5, 2005, at 6:56 AM, David Gerard wrote:
steven l. rubenstein (rubenste@ohiou.edu) [050605 22:48]:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
I can tell you now we have no intention of taking on this one as well! Not just the amount of work, but simply that that's not what the AC was put into place for.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to develop another committee or mechanism.
Well, yeah.
There are all sorts of possible problems. Specialist Point Of View is not necessarily Neutral Point Of View. That sort of thing.
I am repeating something I have said several times in the past. This issue is not new.
That's why it's being discussed here as well :-)
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
steven l. rubenstein stated for the record:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
The ArbComm[0] will neither consider nor pass judgement on content-based disputes. Is that clear enough for you?
[0] For values of "ArbComm" that include [[User:the Epopt]].
Yes, we all understand, but the question is how to solve the problem or to live with the consequences of not solving it. It is by no means determined that the Arbitration Committee is not part of the solution.
Fred
On Jun 5, 2005, at 7:40 AM, Sean Barrett wrote:
steven l. rubenstein stated for the record:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
The ArbComm[0] will neither consider nor pass judgement on content- based disputes. Is that clear enough for you?
[0] For values of "ArbComm" that include [[User:the Epopt]].
-- Sean Barrett | Aw, Mom, you act like I'm not even sean@epoptic.com | wearing a bungee cord! --Calvin _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sean Barrett wrote:
steven l. rubenstein stated for the record:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
The ArbComm[0] will neither consider nor pass judgement on content-based disputes. Is that clear enough for you?
There is still a distinction to be made between "judgement on content-based disputes" and "judgement on content."
Ec
--- Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
There is still a distinction to be made between "judgement on content-based disputes" and "judgement on content."
Very good point. I for one only want 'judgment on content-based disputes.' This is in fact something that is already going on, but most often, only for the most obvious cases. A group of vetted and respected people more familiar with the subject matter is needed to help the ArbCom detect less-obvious cases.
-- mav
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
--- "steven l. rubenstein" rubenste@ohiou.edu wrote:
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority.
Nor is such a small body of people competent in the number of areas of knowledge needed to make this workable. I, for example, know very little about advanced mathematics so I would be unable to judge a content dispute in that area without spending a very, very long time on research.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to develop another committee or mechanism.
This is not an either/or situation. My plan is for the ArbCom to consult various content specialist subcommittees when content issues arise.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alternat...
Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Discover Yahoo! Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out! http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
steven l. rubenstein said:
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes.
Why? If the disputes are irresolvable, why is it necessary to bring in a deus ex machina to declare a resolution? Isn't it just more honest to leave the irresolvable unresolved? I find this, the current way, quite satisfactory and if the arbcom really is accepting cases that are in the realm of content disputes then they should simply be more parsimonious in the kind of dispute they accept.
Tony Sidaway stated for the record:
steven l. rubenstein said:
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes.
Why? If the disputes are irresolvable, why is it necessary to bring in a deus ex machina to declare a resolution? Isn't it just more honest to leave the irresolvable unresolved? I find this, the current way, quite satisfactory and if the arbcom really is accepting cases that are in the realm of content disputes then they should simply be more parsimonious in the kind of dispute they accept.
No dispute is irresolvable once you get past that archaic idea of NPOV and accept OTPOV -- the One True Point of View.
Tony Sidaway wrote:
steven l. rubenstein said:
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes.
Why? If the disputes are irresolvable, why is it necessary to bring in a deus ex machina to declare a resolution? Isn't it just more honest to leave the irresolvable unresolved? I find this, the current way, quite satisfactory and if the arbcom really is accepting cases that are in the realm of content disputes then they should simply be more parsimonious in the kind of dispute they accept.
Insisting on a solution to that paradox leads to the whole cloth from which religions (including scientism) are carved.
People find it very difficult to accept that a problem may have no solution or that a question may have no answer.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
People find it very difficult to accept that a problem may have no solution or that a question may have no answer.
It doesn't apply to all the disputes, but I might go further and say that some of the content disputes are an extention spilling over into our encyclopedia of real-world disputes, often between well-credentialed experts.
To take just one example, the mess of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy of mind, and associated fields isn't resolved in the real world, so it would be unreasonable to suppose it will be nicely resolved in Wikipedia. Things like, does mental illness exist; if so, what is it; should it be treated with therapy or drugs or both or neither; etc.; are questions that have settled answers in some fields, unsettled ones in others, and often conflicting settled answers between fields. So you end up with people arguing "this article should say [x], because psychiatry experts agree", and others arguing "no, it should say [x] is false, because philosophers agree [x] is a prima facie illogical position", and all sides can produce volumes of peer-reviewed literature to support their position.
The only real solution I see is to simply document these viewpoints. Wikipedia isn't the place to settle whether psychiatrists are pill-pushing pseudo-scientists, or psychologists are out-of-touch scientists who don't understand medicine, or philosophers should just butt out entirely, but we can document what they all say.
-Mark
On 6/6/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
People find it very difficult to accept that a problem may have no solution or that a question may have no answer.
It doesn't apply to all the disputes, but I might go further and say that some of the content disputes are an extention spilling over into our encyclopedia of real-world disputes, often between well-credentialed experts.
To take just one example, the mess of psychology, psychiatry, philosophy of mind, and associated fields isn't resolved in the real world, so it would be unreasonable to suppose it will be nicely resolved in Wikipedia. Things like, does mental illness exist; if so, what is it; should it be treated with therapy or drugs or both or neither; etc.; are questions that have settled answers in some fields, unsettled ones in others, and often conflicting settled answers between fields. So you end up with people arguing "this article should say [x], because psychiatry experts agree", and others arguing "no, it should say [x] is false, because philosophers agree [x] is a prima facie illogical position", and all sides can produce volumes of peer-reviewed literature to support their position.
The only real solution I see is to simply document these viewpoints. Wikipedia isn't the place to settle whether psychiatrists are pill-pushing pseudo-scientists, or psychologists are out-of-touch scientists who don't understand medicine, or philosophers should just butt out entirely, but we can document what they all say.
-Mark
Now, I think you make an interesting point here. "Don't assume disputes in the real world can be resolved in Wikipedia." There's a lot of issues here in Wikipedia that are not (or a lot les controversial) in the real world. Those are the ones we should try to solve first.
--Mgm
On 6/7/05, Delirium delirium@hackish.org wrote:
The only real solution I see is to simply document these viewpoints. Wikipedia isn't the place to settle whether psychiatrists are pill-pushing pseudo-scientists, or psychologists are out-of-touch scientists who don't understand medicine, or philosophers should just butt out entirely, but we can document what they all say.
Indeed, the ultimate intention of NPOV.