Marc Riddell wrote:
on 1/8/09 9:20 PM, Erik Moeller at erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/8 Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net:
This is pure unsubstantiated rhetoric. There are real-life, real-time problems - serious problems - that directly involve the people occurring in the English Wikipedia for example. Where is your help?
Marc, can you give examples of what kind of help you'd like to see?
Yes, Erik, I can. Just two for now, it's been a long day for me and I still have tomorrow's sessions to prepare for.
- A person at the Foundation level who has true, sensitive inter-personal as
well a inter-group skills, and who would keep a close eye on the Project looking for impasses when they arise. The person would need to be objective and lobby-resistant ;-). This would be the person of absolute last resort in settling community-confounding problems.
Why are local ArbComs insufficient for this? If the community is unable to resolve the dispute, I highly doubt someone who's a relative outsider stepping in the middle would be able to unless they just issue an official, non-negotiable edict.
*This is more of a cultural issue: I would like to see the more established members of the community be more open to criticism and dissent from within the community. As it is now that tolerance is extremely low. I'm not talking about me; I'm an old Berkeley war horse and have been called things I had to look up :-). But I have gotten private emails from persons in the community with legitimate beefs, along with some good ideas for change, but are very reluctant to voice them because of how they believe they will be received.
And how is the foundation supposed to resolve this? Counsel people into changing their opinions? Ban people who appear to be suppressing criticism? Forcibly change policies? Act as proxies for people afraid of criticism? I'm struggling to think of anything that could be done on a foundation level that would be effective here.
Alex (wikipedia:en:User:Mr.Z-man)