OK, let's change the subject here, as I think this deserves a seperate thread.
I agree with Thomas that no responsibilities have been determined yet.
However, let me please make clear that I absolutely disagree with the idea to have "representatives" of local arbcoms in the meta-arbcom. Not in any case. Why? Well, because this meta-arbcom would in any case mainly be dealing with small projects and cases that are multi-project. Other then expertise these local arbcoms have nothing to bring in. I think that for the sake of neutrality it would even be better to not have local arbcommers in the meta-arbcom. It's either another, either a higher jurisdiction. In neither of the cases it would be wishful to have local arbcom people in the meta-arbcom.
Please let us not get stuck in details here by the way. The language is mere a practical issue that the arbcom will have to solve on itself. I think however that for practical reasons language sections would not be successful. It is not scalable. You can't get 280 language sections, or we should hire language-miracles here, but I think they can spend their time much better writing travel guides ;-)
Best regards,
Lodewijk
2008/1/4, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I am not sure I quite agree. The local arbitrators on say the Portuguese wikipedia might not have been chosen for their familiarity with minor languages in the (former and current) Portuguese colonies, just as an example, which a putative meta arbcom team with a working language of Portuguese, might quite easily be.
I guess that all depends on what responsibilities the meta-arbcom would have, which I don't think has been decided on. If it's primarily arbitrating disputes (as the name would suggest), the skills needed are much the same regardless of the nature of the dispute.
I don't quite see how a pure english language meta-arbcom would be truer.
It wouldn't be an English Language arbcom, it would an arbcom that uses English as a lingua franca. That's the only way to allow people from different languages to work together to resolve issues, which I think would be a good feature of a central arbcom.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Well, I suppose the role of the ArbCom would have to be determined before its membership rules are outlined. I think the value of expertise (which you dismissed) is quite high - unlike stewards, ArbCom's are chosen with the community judgment of their ability in case resolution implicit. But you're right - if the meta ArbCom is going to be a venue for appeal (which I would advocate against) then it would be difficult to select meta-AC members from local-AC pools - difficult, but not impossible with a diverse gruop and a policy of recusal.
In general principle, why should we invent a new election process for this role when election processes for similar roles already exist and can be done in a decentralized fashion for maximum general participation?
Finally, regarding languages. I think it is obvious that the lingua franca of meta-AC deliberations must be English. However, if all cases are to be filed in English this raises a very serious issue of disenfranchising local projects with only a small number of English speakers. On the other hand, if cases can be filed in native languages this again raises a very serious issue - that of the inability of AC members to read the statements, an inability to verify evidence and an inability to conduct an investigation of any kind. Any meta-AC is going to encounter issues with evidence, investigation and appeals written in non-English languages.
Based on the language issue alone, I would argue that to forestall these many difficult issues the scope of the meta-AC should be limited very narrowly and only expanded over time in areas of clear need. An initial jurisdiction could be defined as conflicts involving violations of core WMF policies by projects, conflicts between projects and varying interpretations of core WMF policies by local ArbComs (similar, in some ways, to the original jurisdiction of the US Supreme Court).
Nathan
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
I think a somewhat jury-like system could work. Have a large group of potential arbiters and then for each case a selection of them are chosen to work on it. It would need a small group of non-jurors to organise it.
Would-be jurors could either be self-appointed (ie you add your own name to an appropriate list on meta), or community-voted (I would expect the standards to be much lower than e.g. steward elections because the idea would be to have dozens of potential jurors), or maybe self-appointed combined with some wikimedia requirement (admin on any project, or 6 months + minimum 200 edits on any project). (I would also expect that in either way, potential arbiters would have to regularly reaffirm their commitment, e.g. have 6 monthly periods of commitment, to avoid the problem of people leaving the projects and their commitment being like a ghost.)
You could even have a system where people nominated areas of expertise (e.g. languages, bots, various projects, various policies, coypright/legal), and then for each case, half the jurors could be chosen randomly from people who had expertise in the relevant area/s, and the other half could be randomly chosen from people who did NOT have expertise in those areas. However that could be a bit problematic in itself, in who decides what the relevant areas of any case are.
The benefits of this approach would be that they reduce the concentration of power, allow much wider participation, and massively reduce the potential for "burnout" among active arbiters. The drawbacks could be inconsistency in decisions from one case to another, but having minimum guidelines that potential arbiters must agree to, or voted-on arbiters rather than self-nominated, could minimise that.
cheers Brianna
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
-- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]
On 05/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
I agree there are plenty of things that would be bad about using English as a lingua franca, but I don't see any good alternatives. There's little point having a central body if it's segregated by language anyway.
Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
This would actually be better from the participants' point of view; one reason is that in some regions, English is not a second language.
H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
I agree there are plenty of things that would be bad about using English as a lingua franca, but I don't see any good alternatives. There's little point having a central body if it's segregated by language anyway.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
Trying to hold a discussion via an online translator would be a nightmare. They are nowhere near good enough for that.
Thomas Dalton, Now you are too quick to judge. I did not say that my suggestion is great; I just wanted to point out a possible direction.
You are thinking from an admininstrators's point of view. You want to easily understand everything put on the table. On the other hand, as we have seen in the recent complaints from the 日本 wikimedians, doing everything in English actually prevent many to participate.
Now look, 1. In any language supported by google and altavista there is a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments on the auto-translation.
2. A bilingual discussion not only ''enfranchaises" more wikimedian, it also allow you to look at the "sources", since many of the comments that would be in English in your proposal would be written in another language and have to be translated anyway.
Best, H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
Trying to hold a discussion via an online translator would be a nightmare. They are nowhere near good enough for that.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
- In any language supported by google and altavista there is
a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments on the auto-translation.
They would end up having to re-translate everything. Auto-translations are appalling and there is far too much risk of misunderstanding.
- A bilingual discussion not only ''enfranchaises" more wikimedian,
it also allow you to look at the "sources", since many of the comments that would be in English in your proposal would be written in another language and have to be translated anyway.
In my proposal, everything is done in English (or, possibly, another common language - if it turns out more people speak French, say, then everything can be done in French, but I think English is likely to have the most people able to take part), there is no translation. That's why members would need to speak reasonable English. If things need to be translated it slows everything down enormously.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- In any language supported by google and altavista there is
a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments on the auto-translation.
They would end up having to re-translate everything. Auto-translations are appalling and there is far too much risk of misunderstanding.
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
Risk of misunderstanding - this will happen even if you use english only. You cannot guarentee what you see is what is meant. However, in my proposal, you at least have the source language in you hand and you can verify. As I have said, there is a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments
- A bilingual discussion not only ''enfranchaises" more wikimedian,
it also allow you to look at the "sources", since many of the comments that would be in English in your proposal would be written in another language and have to be translated anyway.
In my proposal, everything is done in English (or, possibly, another common language - if it turns out more people speak French, say, then everything can be done in French, but I think English is likely to have the most people able to take part), there is no translation. That's why members would need to speak reasonable English. If things need to be translated it slows everything down enormously.
There is no translation? Do you forget that the English or French that you see are translations themselves?
Best, H.
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
If you select a subset of the committee based on languages spoken, it's harder to ensure a "fair trial", since it's not a random selection. It also removes the benefit of having various points of view - the French speaking members are likely to be the members active on the French projects, so you lose the wealth of knowledge that members of other projects could bring.
Risk of misunderstanding - this will happen even if you use english only. You cannot guarentee what you see is what is meant. However, in my proposal, you at least have the source language in you hand and you can verify. As I have said, there is a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments
You can never eliminate the risk, but you can reduce it. The risk from people's English not being perfect is far less than the risk of misunderstanding an auto-translation.
There is no translation? Do you forget that the English or French that you see are translations themselves?
Once you speak a language to a reasonable degree, you don't work out what you want to say in your native tongue and then translate it, you write it directly in the other language. There is no translation.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
If you select a subset of the committee based on languages spoken, it's harder to ensure a "fair trial", since it's not a random selection. It also removes the benefit of having various points of view - the French speaking members are likely to be the members active on the French projects, so you lose the wealth of knowledge that members of other projects could bring.
If you select a subset of partcipants based on languages spoken, it's even harder to ensure a *fair trial*.
Risk of misunderstanding - this will happen even if you use english only. You cannot guarentee what you see is what is meant. However, in my proposal, you at least have the source language in you hand and you can verify. As I have said, there is a substantial pool of wikimedians to supply important comments
You can never eliminate the risk, but you can reduce it. The risk from people's English not being perfect is far less than the risk of misunderstanding an auto-translation.
There is no translation? Do you forget that the English or French that you see are translations themselves?
Once you speak a language to a reasonable degree, you don't work out what you want to say in your native tongue and then translate it, you write it directly in the other language. There is no translation.
You are assuming too much. No. My experience with my Chinese friends tell me that many of them do not think in English. They think it out in ä¸æ–‡ and translate them into english. Yet even more may not even do that.
See also the recent comments from 日本 participants.
It is not a good idea to tell people "I can't serve you because you don't speak my language" when it is your duty to serve them.
Best, H.
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
If you select a subset of the committee based on languages spoken, it's harder to ensure a "fair trial", since it's not a random selection. It also removes the benefit of having various points of view - the French speaking members are likely to be the members active on the French projects, so you lose the wealth of knowledge that members of other projects could bring.
Even worse: Since in this case we are talking about a conflict that is impossible to resolve in French wp, having arbitrators who are possibly active contriburors or admins in French wp just means that they may be a side of the conflict and it is unlikely that they remain neutral.
Cheers Yaroslav
Yaroslav M. Blanter,
We are talking about a major language here. There are many people in the world who speak French as a second language. They may know French but do not participate in the particular project.
Best, H. On 05/01/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
If you select a subset of the committee based on languages spoken, it's harder to ensure a "fair trial", since it's not a random selection. It also removes the benefit of having various points of view - the French speaking members are likely to be the members active on the French projects, so you lose the wealth of knowledge that members of other projects could bring.
Even worse: Since in this case we are talking about a conflict that is impossible to resolve in French wp, having arbitrators who are possibly active contriburors or admins in French wp just means that they may be a side of the conflict and it is unlikely that they remain neutral.
Cheers Yaroslav
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yaroslav M. Blanter,
We are talking about a major language here. There are many people in the world who speak French as a second language. They may know French but do not participate in the particular project.
Best, H.
I know. I also speak French and do not participate in French WP. The question is how likely is that among say 30 members of the AC elected in WMF space (and not by general public) will be several people speaking French and not active in French WP. And even if French and Spanish have some chances, what about Japanese or Greek?
Cheers, Yaroslav
Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
Retranslate: No - if we have a case from a project whose participants use French as a second lanugage, simply pick arbitrators who speak french.
If you select a subset of the committee based on languages spoken, it's harder to ensure a "fair trial", since it's not a random selection. It also removes the benefit of having various points of view - the French speaking members are likely to be the members active on the French projects, so you lose the wealth of knowledge that members of other projects could bring
Even worse: Since in this case we are talking about a conflict that is impossible to resolve in French wp, having arbitrators who are possibly active contriburors or admins in French wp just means that they may be a side of the conflict and it is unlikely that they remain neutral.
Not only that the arbitrators must be familiar with the rules and practices of the project in question. It is not enough to read the languages. I don't even know of any instances where the en:Arbcom has ruled on any problem arising in one of the other English languafe sister projects. If it tried to impose en:wp practices on any of them I'm sure there would be a storm of controversy.
Ec
Not only that the arbitrators must be familiar with the rules and practices of the project in question. It is not enough to read the languages.
That's an excellent point. I think that pretty much rules out a meta-arbcom considering cases for small projects without their own arbcom.
I don't even know of any instances where the en:Arbcom has ruled on any problem arising in one of the other English languafe sister projects. If it tried to impose en:wp practices on any of them I'm sure there would be a storm of controversy.
The enwiki Arbcom doesn't have jurisdiction over other projects, so would never accept cases from them. The only way they would ever end up considering a case for them would be if they were approached by the community of that project, so there wouldn't be any controversy, since it would be that's project's decision. I doubt the enwiki Arbcom would agree to it even if they were approached though, it's not what they're there for.
Did somebody try to estimate how serious the problem is? How many editors in language wikipedias are around who do not speak English reasonably good but whose activities are not restricted to their wp edition, they are still active at the meta level, vote for stewards and would be interested in participating in the ArbCom? I guess it is a marginal amount but I do not really have an idea. Does the number of such contributors grow in time or does it go down?
On the other hand, probably everybody will have to accept that if English is to become lingua franca for the ArbCom, it is broken English.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
Trying to hold a discussion via an online translator would be a nightmare. They are nowhere near good enough for that.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yaroslav M. Blanter, The problem is not in the committee member but in the community member. That is, requiring participant to use English alone automatically eliminate many participants in a case in their own language project.
Remember, the arbitration committee is a service. Customers are always right.
Best, H.
On 05/01/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Did somebody try to estimate how serious the problem is? How many editors in language wikipedias are around who do not speak English reasonably good but whose activities are not restricted to their wp edition, they are still active at the meta level, vote for stewards and would be interested in participating in the ArbCom? I guess it is a marginal amount but I do not really have an idea. Does the number of such contributors grow in time or does it go down?
On the other hand, probably everybody will have to accept that if English is to become lingua franca for the ArbCom, it is broken English.
Cheers, Yaroslav
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
Trying to hold a discussion via an online translator would be a nightmare. They are nowhere near good enough for that.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter, The problem is not in the committee member but in the community member. That is, requiring participant to use English alone automatically eliminate many participants in a case in their own language project.
Remember, the arbitration committee is a service. Customers are always right.
Communication involving the parties would need to be translated, there's no choice there. I'm talking about discussions within the committee.
Thomas Dalton,
Communication involving the parties would need to be translated,
Of course. What I am saying is that people participate in any language and then somebody translate it to a common (major) language chosen for the case if there is need.
In my proposal you see the arguments in both the source language and a major language.
Best, H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter, The problem is not in the committee member but in the community member. That is, requiring participant to use English alone automatically eliminate many participants in a case in their own language project.
Remember, the arbitration committee is a service. Customers are always right.
Communication involving the parties would need to be translated, there's no choice there. I'm talking about discussions within the committee.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
Communication involving the parties would need to be translated,
Of course. What I am saying is that people participate in any language and then somebody translate it to a common (major) language chosen for the case if there is need.
In my proposal you see the arguments in both the source language and a major language.
The arguments from the parties, yes. I'm talking about discussion within the committee. Once they've heard the arguments they need to deliberate and reach a conclusion - that deliberation needs to happen in one language or it's simply impractical.
Thomas Dalton,
The arguments from the parties, yes. I'm talking about discussion within the committee. Once they've heard the arguments they need to deliberate and reach a conclusion - that deliberation needs to happen in one language or it's simply impractical.
Then I might have misread your comment. Yes, that would be useful. That is up to the arbitrators and it is not something that we should bother ourselves with.
Best, H.
Thomas Dalton,
And the comments of the arbitrators should, of course, be translated to the native language of the project, unless it is clear that there is no such need.
Best, H. On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
The arguments from the parties, yes. I'm talking about discussion within the committee. Once they've heard the arguments they need to deliberate and reach a conclusion - that deliberation needs to happen in one language or it's simply impractical.
Then I might have misread your comment. Yes, that would be useful. That is up to the arbitrators and it is not something that we should bother ourselves with.
Best, H.
And the comments of the arbitrators should, of course, be translated to the native language of the project, unless it is clear that there is no such need.
Where possible, that would be good. That is just translation into one language (or maybe a couple of it's a dispute that crosses into two projects), rather than translation into every language represented on the committee, and doesn't have to be done in real time, it can be done at the end. Real time translation slows down discussion, translation after everything is over is much more practical.
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
The arguments from the parties, yes. I'm talking about discussion within the committee. Once they've heard the arguments they need to deliberate and reach a conclusion - that deliberation needs to happen in one language or it's simply impractical.
Then I might have misread your comment. Yes, that would be useful. That is up to the arbitrators and it is not something that we should bother ourselves with.
It needs to be decided before the committee is chosen, otherwise you run of the risk of someone that doesn't speak English getting on the committee but then not being able to take part in deliberations because they are all in English.
Thomas Dalton,
Sure, but that can be done case-by-case. I think we both agree that sometimes it is better to use a language other than English.
And that should depend on which "native" language the project is in.
Best, H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
The arguments from the parties, yes. I'm talking about discussion within the committee. Once they've heard the arguments they need to deliberate and reach a conclusion - that deliberation needs to happen in one language or it's simply impractical.
Then I might have misread your comment. Yes, that would be useful. That is up to the arbitrators and it is not something that we should bother ourselves with.
It needs to be decided before the committee is chosen, otherwise you run of the risk of someone that doesn't speak English getting on the committee but then not being able to take part in deliberations because they are all in English.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
Sure, but that can be done case-by-case. I think we both agree that sometimes it is better to use a language other than English.
And that should depend on which "native" language the project is in.
For discussions with the parties, yes, it should be done in whatever language is best for the parties and the committee can worry about translating things. For discussions within the committee, it's quickest and easiest to always use English.
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
BR, Lodewijk
2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 05/01/2008, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton,
Sure, but that can be done case-by-case. I think we both agree that sometimes it is better to use a language other than English.
And that should depend on which "native" language the project is in.
For discussions with the parties, yes, it should be done in whatever language is best for the parties and the committee can worry about translating things. For discussions within the committee, it's quickest and easiest to always use English.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
Imho, if you want something not to succeed, there is a very easy way: pinn yourself down on the details. The details will follow from the big lines, and if there are no big lines yet, it is not veyr useful to start with the details. And the "mere" was compared with the main question imho, at which I hear nothing almost, what exactly the purpose would be.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
I am afraid I am lost in this thread, and in particularly in this "multilingual vs monolingual (one lingua franca) dispute.
That if a working team should be multilingual or not depends on its purpose highly: what they would like to solve, whom they would like to involve or interact etc. And also there is always a possibility to ask for help of the people not directly involved. Like we are doing on OTRS, some committees etc.
Both directions have their merits and demerits. Personally I prefer to enforce multilingualism but it requires us more workload, more effort and sometimes certain degree of ambiguity and potential misrepresentation as well as that a monolingual direction may bring. As for the body discussed their working language, their official language (i.e. the language(s) in which they state officially) and the language they may accept / can communicate to interested parties in each cases may vary. And it is the purpose and intention that determined what is the ideal set for the proposed body. People who support a given direction is accountable why the set they prefer is the best available one regarding to the issues with which they will solve and issues they should leave or not completely take care.
I am afraid I missed this kind of argument. While I have a great interest to enhance the multilingualism on the Wikimedia project both content-based activity and organizational one, for this issue, currently I would like to stay abstain.
On Jan 6, 2008 3:53 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Imho, if you want something not to succeed, there is a very easy way: pinn yourself down on the details. The details will follow from the big lines, and if there are no big lines yet, it is not veyr useful to start with the details. And the "mere" was compared with the main question imho, at which I hear nothing almost, what exactly the purpose would be.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 1/5/08, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
That if a working team should be multilingual or not depends on its purpose highly: what they would like to solve, whom they would like to involve or interact etc. And also there is always a possibility to ask for help of the people not directly involved. Like we are doing on OTRS, some committees etc.
I agree. If we have problems with people who don't speak English, options are:
1. If it is some of the languages with relevant number of speakers who are talking English, then ArbCom would be able to find someone who would help.
2. A lot of languages have their primary second language (in the most of cases English, but may be French, Russian, Dutch, German, Arabic...). In this case ArbCom may switch to the first solution (with some variants).
3. If we are talking about really small language without a lot of possibilities for talk in other language, then ArbCom should try to make some solution. At least, it should show a good will with investigating the case.
4. If we are talking about a person who are not willing to accept some help in translation, then it is not a problem of ArbCom, but a problem of that person.
However, I am sure that the most of the cases would be solved by using 1st and 2nd solutions.
In all cases it should be mentioned that ArbCom *really* prefers English as a lingua franca, but if a person is not able to write (or to understand) English, ArbCom will try find some way how to help. (And this message should be written in as many as possible languages :) )
Hoi, When relatively irrelevant things are discussed I switch off. What is of relevance to me is that a global arbitration com is about meta considerations. I do not care for individual people complaining about whatever. What is of relevance to me is how to deal with PROJECTS that are considered to be problematic. How we are to define where the self determination of projects stops and where global values take precedence. When an arbcom is dealing with that, I am very eager to see this happen. When it does not deal with this, it is for me mostly a waste of time and effort. Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 5, 2008 7:49 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ok. Functions for a meta-arbcom. So far, I can see three general ideas for the kinds of cases they could consider:
1) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but on projects which are too small to have an arbcom. 2) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but when they affect multiple projects. 3) Issues with projects as a whole.
I suggest we try and complete this list, and then we can move on to discussing which items on the list should and should not be part of meta-arbcom's remit.
Hoi, One is not really a good thing to do. Projects have to find their own way. Two is not really a good thing to do. Projects are independent and it is not for the German, the English Wikipedia to determine what the Frisian Wikipedia is to do. "Issues with projects as a whole" sounds to be rather nebulous. What kind of issues would they be and under what circumstances would it make sense for an outside body to get involved ? Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 5, 2008 8:17 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Ok. Functions for a meta-arbcom. So far, I can see three general ideas for the kinds of cases they could consider:
- The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but on projects
which are too small to have an arbcom. 2) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but when they affect multiple projects. 3) Issues with projects as a whole.
I suggest we try and complete this list, and then we can move on to discussing which items on the list should and should not be part of meta-arbcom's remit.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 05/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, One is not really a good thing to do. Projects have to find their own way. Two is not really a good thing to do. Projects are independent and it is not for the German, the English Wikipedia to determine what the Frisian Wikipedia is to do. "Issues with projects as a whole" sounds to be rather nebulous. What kind of issues would they be and under what circumstances would it make sense for an outside body to get involved ?
Number 3 was your idea. What did you mean by it?
On 1/5/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
- The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but on projects
which are too small to have an arbcom. 2) The same kind of cases local arbcoms consider, but when they affect multiple projects. 3) Issues with projects as a whole.
I think that all of the cases are important, but all of them have different implications...
1a. Some projects don't want to have ArbComs. In this case, only general functioning of the project may be a matter of Meta ArbCom. In that case we need some kind of Meta Mediation Committee which would help to such projects. (BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make ArbCom.)
1b. Again, disputes on small projects without ArbCom should go firstly to the Mediation Committee.
1c. All Wikimedia-wide bodies have to have a lot of members.
2a. Almost the same as for 1.
2b. Cases may be extremely complex. I am really curious to see the third dispute over some Balkan dispute (the first two will be warm-upping) and how Meta ArbCom would solve it.
2c. Again, Mediation Committee is much better idea here. At least for the beginning.
3. Yes, we need to see do we have some problematic projects and how to solve problems there. However, out of NPOV and other non-negotiable things, Meta ArbCom shouldn't have jurisdiction. And, again, Mediation Committee should be used firstly.
(BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make ArbCom.)
A meta-mediation committee is a good idea. It doesn't need to be done formally, it can just be a page on meta listing people willing to help mediate disputes and what languages they speak. Some mention of their qualifications might also be good. It shouldn't be an elected committee (not worth the hassle), but it might possibly need some restriction on who can join (must be an admin on at least one [not tiny] project, say).
Hoi, If you allow for this you will not get proper policies. When you deal with problematic issues, when you may create precedents you do NOT want an informal group of people. You want some even handed people well versed with what the WMF stands for (this in marked contrast with what a particular project stands for). The notion that someone has to be "an admin on at least one [nottiny] project, say)" is not that relevant, what is relevant is that they have the authority to insist on getting attention from the parties involved. Dependent on necessity, they either get the board or the directors approval for the implementation of what is decided.
So it very much needs to be a formal issue. It has to be clear that invoking the meta-arbitration is not without consequences.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 7, 2008 7:31 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make ArbCom.)
A meta-mediation committee is a good idea. It doesn't need to be done formally, it can just be a page on meta listing people willing to help mediate disputes and what languages they speak. Some mention of their qualifications might also be good. It shouldn't be an elected committee (not worth the hassle), but it might possibly need some restriction on who can join (must be an admin on at least one [not tiny] project, say).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 07/01/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, If you allow for this you will not get proper policies. When you deal with problematic issues, when you may create precedents you do NOT want an informal group of people. You want some even handed people well versed with what the WMF stands for (this in marked contrast with what a particular project stands for). The notion that someone has to be "an admin on at least one [nottiny] project, say)" is not that relevant, what is relevant is that they have the authority to insist on getting attention from the parties involved. Dependent on necessity, they either get the board or the directors approval for the implementation of what is decided.
So it very much needs to be a formal issue. It has to be clear that invoking the meta-arbitration is not without consequences.
I wasn't talking about meta-arbitration, I was talking about meta-mediation. A meta-arbcom (which, incidentally, is a bad name - what the enwiki Arbcom, for example, does is not arbitration, it's enforcement of policy, arbitration does not involve imposing decisions) needs to be a formal body, meta-mediation does not. Mediation is just meant to help the parties come to a mutual agreement, it doesn't impose solutions. A good mediator doesn't need to be an expert on policy and able to work out the solution to a problem, just just need to be good at getting people talking so they can come up with their own solution. If they fail, then that's the time to go to a formal arbcom.
As we will have to wait until Meta ArbCom would be made, it is better to have something then nothing.
I made a page for the Meta mediation committee [1]. I initiated this, but I am not willing to be a mediator :)
Please, take a look to the initial definition and change it if you think that something should be added, removed, changed... I am sure that I missed at least something (if not a lot).
[1] - http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_mediation_committee
On 1/7/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
(BTW, I realized now that we need firstly Meta Mediation Committee and only after making such body we should make ArbCom.)
A meta-mediation committee is a good idea. It doesn't need to be done formally, it can just be a page on meta listing people willing to help mediate disputes and what languages they speak. Some mention of their qualifications might also be good. It shouldn't be an elected committee (not worth the hassle), but it might possibly need some restriction on who can join (must be an admin on at least one [not tiny] project, say).
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 5, 2008 10:24 AM, hillgentleman hillgentleman.wikiversity@gmail.com wrote:
Yaroslav M. Blanter, The problem is not in the committee member but in the community member. That is, requiring participant to use English alone automatically eliminate many participants in a case in their own language project.
Remember, the arbitration committee is a service. Customers are always right.
Best, H.
That is an important factor, yes. Unfortunately the Wikipedia-en ArbCom faces this issues regularly. ArbCom needs to address problems about editor conduct on topics where many of the users come from different localities, speak different native languages with various levels of writing and reading English. Perhaps a meta-arbcom could help communities deal with these editor conduct disputes better since they often spread over multiple projects. What we are talking about is finding a better way to serve the needs of the Community than we are now.
Sydney
On 05/01/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Did somebody try to estimate how serious the problem is? How many editors in language wikipedias are around who do not speak English reasonably good but whose activities are not restricted to their wp edition, they are still active at the meta level, vote for stewards and would be interested in participating in the ArbCom? I guess it is a marginal amount but I do not really have an idea. Does the number of such contributors grow in time or does it go down?
Good questions.
On the other hand, probably everybody will have to accept that if English is to become lingua franca for the ArbCom, it is broken English.
Certainly. Requiring fluent English would be excessive. As long as it is understandable, it doesn't matter if the grammar isn't perfect.
You are expecting too much on the participants. It is highly possible that many potential participants with important things to say would be prevented from contributing.
Best, H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
Did somebody try to estimate how serious the problem is? How many editors in language wikipedias are around who do not speak English reasonably good but whose activities are not restricted to their wp edition, they are still active at the meta level, vote for stewards and would be interested in participating in the ArbCom? I guess it is a marginal amount but I do not really have an idea. Does the number of such contributors grow in time or does it go down?
Good questions.
On the other hand, probably everybody will have to accept that if English is to become lingua franca for the ArbCom, it is broken English.
Certainly. Requiring fluent English would be excessive. As long as it is understandable, it doesn't matter if the grammar isn't perfect.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
There are certainly several major concerns about starting up the metarbcom, not the least of which defining itself. Perhaps the Wikicouncil should be established first, granted its authority in a slow and safe manner. Somewhere along the way it could be given the task of developping the metarbcom.
Ec
2008/1/6, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
There are certainly several major concerns about starting up the metarbcom, not the least of which defining itself. Perhaps the Wikicouncil should be established first, granted its authority in a slow and safe manner. Somewhere along the way it could be given the task of developping the metarbcom.
Ec
I think that the community as a whole should discuss this issue, and should come up with a proposal. Of course, if the community does not come to a conclusion, and is not able to come to such a proposal, it could ask a group of people to write one. However, I am not sure if I'd prefer to have writing these policies within the scope of the Volunteer Council/Wikicouncil. But that is a whole other discussion, in another thread on this list :)
However, you could also take any subgroup to write such a proposal.
BR, Lodewijk
On Jan 6, 2008 7:06 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
2008/1/6, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
There are certainly several major concerns about starting up the metarbcom, not the least of which defining itself. Perhaps the Wikicouncil should be established first, granted its authority in a slow and safe manner. Somewhere along the way it could be given the task of developping the metarbcom.
Ec
I think that the community as a whole should discuss this issue, and should come up with a proposal. Of course, if the community does not come to a conclusion, and is not able to come to such a proposal, it could ask a group of people to write one. However, I am not sure if I'd prefer to have writing these policies within the scope of the Volunteer Council/Wikicouncil. But that is a whole other discussion, in another thread on this list :)
However, you could also take any subgroup to write such a proposal.
BR, Lodewijk
I think having the discussion with the Community is what we are starting to do now.
Many people see the value of having a Wikicouncil/Voulunteer Council and also an independent body functioning as a meta-arbcom. There seems to be some users with concerns about the way these groups will be designed. I think the best way to answer these concerns is through thoughtful discussions with the community through each step in the process of starting these bodies. I'm pretty sure that it is possible to formulate a design that answers the concerns once they are brought to light.
Sydney
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org