--- On Mon, 14/3/11, Dror Kamir <dqamir(a)bezeqint.net> wrote:
From: Dror Kamir <dqamir(a)bezeqint.net>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] breaking English Wikipedia apart
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Monday, 14 March, 2011, 13:27
First of all, I am not talking just
about BLP. This is part of the
problem. I am also concerned about new editors who were
treated badly
(that happens more often than you think), about
unreasonable decisions
of admins etc. Secondly, such ombudsman should keep a
certain distance
from Wikipedia's "corridors", namely, s/he must not be an
administrator
nor bureaucrat, and while s/he should be well acquainted
with Wikipedia,
perhaps it would be better if s/he won't edit. Furthermore,
it is
crucial that this person be identified by her/his real name
and be
reachable in various ways, not only through an e-mail
address. It is
also important that this person give a public account on
the problems
s/he handled and measures s/he took to solve them. The very
existence
of such a report is the guarantee that all complaints
be addressed
properly, and in addition it would increase transparency
and let us have
a clear picture of the Wikipedian scene.
Having a single person would not work, as people would assume that a single
person may have their own personal biases affecting their judgment.
An elected committee might work, and I do think we should look at empowering
such a committee to remove the right to edit BLPs from editors who
repeatedly abuse it, and at creating the technical means to do so.
Whether that is by creating a separate BLP project, as John has proposed,
which can block or ban its own editors, or as part of a BLP flag system in
Wikipedia, is relatively immaterial.
Andreas