Hi David
Great post! Reminds me of something I saw last night on Russia Today, Keiser Report about JPMorgan and co. They always win, no matter what. And you've just hit the nail on the head.
But that goes as far as RD goes, which is one issue. Your way of doing it adequately solves those unpleasant encounters. The other issue unfortunately is that the project is being infiltrated by corporates being paid to edit. In this instance, I have been able to collect enough evidence to make a case that one of more editors are here to do nothing else but ensure good press for Microsoft. But apparently 'outing' is a cardinal sin and the most unviolable of violations.
So, I'll take your advice and will go work on other issues - not necessarily WP, I think I'll give this a wide berth for a while.
Good one! Keep it up.
Regards,
Rui
On 8 September 2013 23:16, David Goodman dggenwp@gmail.com wrote:
All live societies have conflict. WP, with perhaps the greatest personal and social diversity of any organization, will inevitably have quite a bit of it. All societies also have some form of dispute resolution. In all societies, the purpose of dispute resolution is to resolve disputes, not necessarily to bring about Justice. In practice, the effect is almost always to resolve disputes by reinforcing the structure of the established society against dissidents and mavericks. A DR process sponsored and controlled by the central organization using professionals, will do this effectively--that is, they will effectively support the existing power structure and the people in positions of authority. If they are clever, they will manage to reconcile as many dissidents as possible with the overall structure, without being too harsh on them. But if they are to be effective, they must also deal with those who wish to subvert the structure of the society, though a sophisticated process can also do this relatively gently.
The centralizing tendencies of WP are already very great--in some cases too great to permit the users to have the necessary flexibility and independence to remain creative. The effect of multiple layers of appeal can be to correct some injustices, but it can also more effectively suppress individualism, by diverting direct conflicts into bureaucratic channels & exhausting the participants with elaborate procedure. People may wish an arrangement to correct injustice against them--but what if the result is to decide for their opponents? At least in the enWP, I advise people against using any level or variant of formal DR if there is any alternative: if you bring a case for decision, you may permanently lose; if you avoid formal process, you can keep trying. Those people who have asked me for advice and gone to arb com or AN/I or other process against my invariable advice not to, have always been the worse for it. The better remedy for losing a particular argument on an issue is to work on other issues. The better remedy for pervasive injustice is to organize opposition.
On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
привет Ð¯Ñ€Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð²,
Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the Wikis.
We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they
are
working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).
I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even
in
Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.
Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens
from
child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The persons working with these questions are very public, you can find
their
names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society.
If
someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.
The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have
never
heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If
these
persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they could not do their job properly.
I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since
there
role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one shouldn't choose Russia though.
I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be
anonymous.
The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not
human.
I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.
Regards, Lars Gardenius
Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.
Fred
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
-- David Goodman
DGG at the enWP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG _______________________________________________ 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