From: Anthere <anthere9(a)yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200
To: foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision
"revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or
"delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone
what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another
unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are
things handled for now ?
ant
Fred Bauder a écrit:
What happens in practice during arbitration on
the English Wikipedia is that
disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a
certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage
in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those
problems are also often involved.
NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included
in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations
where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other
viewpoint excluded.
There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a
few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals
trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
Fred, Arbitration Committee
From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette"
<jean-christophe.chazalette(a)laposte.net>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200
To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
arbitration rules.
Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
: "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
The current poll is expected to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
pump, I'd like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
Thanks.
villy
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org