The Arbitration Committe is a step in the right direction. I was probably never informed about it because it is only available for a small number of Wikis, and I speak about Wikis in general (including the Swedish Wikipedia).
The Committe is obviously alive and kicking in the English Wikipedia. When I look at other Committes they seem dormant or "dead". As I said earlier I don't believe this problem is as big in the English Wikipedia as it is in some smaller Wikis, so it is more important that the others were alive.
There are however some principal problems with the Arbitration Committee (and I will now use the English one as an example). I think these problems are symptomatic for the Wiki-org, and reflects what I meant by that the problem is not seriously addressed.
I don't care if there is a committe for all Wikis or one for every Wiki, the import thing is that they work (or for that matter what this instance is called).
1. The members are not independent of the Wikis. It is obvious that they still work on the Wikipedia. That means that they run the risk of still having loyalities to old friends. It is like when I asked an Ombudsman why he didn't intervene when he saw abuses, and he answered "I don't want to because they (the abusers) are my friends".
2. The members have no responsibility. First of all they are volunteers and they are anonymous. This means that the arbitration is simply moved from a bigger to a smaller group within the same community.
The members have no responsibility, i.e. they are not accountable for their decisions. How can you make someone called "NuclearWarfare" accountable (no offense intended, I don't know this person, it is an example.) Would you buy a used car from someone who called himself "NuclearWarfare"? Would you put your little daughter in care of someone who just calls himself " NuclearWarfare"?
If not, why would you put the question whether your daughter has been mobbed and harassed in a Wiki in the hands of someone who only identifies himself as "NuclearWarfare"?
No, it needs to be professional people (with enough knowledge about the Wikis) who is hired by the organisation (local or global) and thereby also represents the organisation and answers to the organisation.
Someone pointed at Facebook and other social medias earlier and said that the problem with mobbing is much bigger there. It might be, but the most of these medias actually take active part in stopping mobbing and abuses. You can contact them and they will often respond very quickly. Some of us may think that they are even to restrictive, but they take anyhow their responsibility.
The Wikis on the other hand take no responsibility, not for what is written and not for who people are treated in the Wiki communities.
This lack of responsibility is I think at the heart of this question, and is the soil in which these abuses can grow.
3. Since the members are not independent they can not act on their own initiative which is absolutely necessary. Not all users, especially children, have the courage to speak up even if they are treated very badly. If the members were responsible for the actions in the Wikis they must also be able to take action when they see abuses.
________________________________ Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 21:21 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
On the contrary, the Arbitration Committee has the responsibility and the power. That they do not discharge the full remit is another matter. People have ran for and been elected to the committee on a platform of not discharging the responsibility it was given.
Fred
No, I just responded to a problem that I recognized well.
If you call him/her this or that is not important.
The important thing is that the person (or group of persons) has the responsibility and the power to fulfil its task, i.e. to protect Wiki-users from abuses and mobbing. Today nobody has neither that responsibility nor that power.
regards, Lars Gardenius
Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:44 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
And your solution is an ombudsman, or what? I know there is a solution that you have in mind. In fact, it looks very much like a solution in search of a problem. Out with it!
Fred
The problem is that "howls of outraged anguish" seems to come from the admins not from the newbies.
But that was not the question here. The question was that the Wikis lack an instance that people can turn to when they are harassed and mobbed in the wikis, be that newbies or admins, children or old folks, women or men.
Regards, Lars Gardenius
Von: Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net An: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Gesendet: 18:03 Donnerstag, 5.September 2013 Betreff: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself
Yes, that is pretty much the situation. The howls of outraged anguish from those who were not able to dictate (really bad) content or practices form the core of our organized opposition. That does not mean systemic deficiencies don't exist; just that we must look and think in a noisy environment.
Fred
On 09/05/2013 04:18 AM, Lars Gardenius wrote:
That "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution" mirrors a very naive approach in a worldwide organization. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now.
Where "doesn't work" is mostly defined as "didn't give the result I demanded".
I've been part of that dispute resolution process for many years, and came out of it with the (admittedly cynical) lesson that the vast majority of vocal critics of it have become so as a result of "losing" to it for having been in the wrong in the first place.
When someone leaves in a tiff because they have been prevented from getting their way against consensus, then the system is arguably doing exactly what it's been designed for.
Of /course/ nobody ends up in a conflict on the projects without being convinced that they are in the right; and if they end up on the losing side, they will clearly feel that they were wronged. We play up the concept of discussion leading to consensus but -- let's not kid ourselves -- we are all humans and thus subject to ego, stubbornness, and personality conflicts.
There *are* no vast, sweeping injustices. No system is perfect and, occasionally, errors *are* made; but the leap from "the system didn't let me get my way" to "the system is broken/dying" is all to easy to make, and is an unavoidable result of humans interacting.
This certainly could be improved. More education of users upfront might prevent the confrontations in the first place; less reliance on established cliques would reduce groupthink and exaggerated conservatism. More robots and fewer humans would reduce the effects of human nature...
-- Marc
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe