On Feb 16, 2005, at 7:20 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:59:43 -0500, Stirling Newberry
<stirling.newberry(a)xigenics.net> wrote:
I don't see how your proposals are going to help. In some cases, yes,
a new person can shed a new light on the matter and find a compromise.
But in cases where there is, as you write, a "cabal" "owning" the
page, getting more people in will only make the discussion being
fought louder, not the solution being brought nearer. There is
currently no way to decide what shape a page should have if there is
no consensus. As long as we do not have that, bringing in more people
will only cause the same arguments to be made over and over again.
Andre Engels
____________________
More people not tied to the original dispute does two things. First, it
takes personality conflicts off the table, which are a regrettable part
of most edit wars. Second, it reduces the ability of groups to harden
into place by getting closer to a statistical sampling of opinion. 2
people self selected to edit an article probably have views which are
unusual, that's why they chose to edit the article. Ten or more is much
more likely to reflect the broad range. Importantly, this would help to
reduce the incentive for each side to bring in friends and continue the
revert war.
If a larger group of wikipedians can't come to a consensus, then it
clearly is time for a more formal RFC to be written. But again, the
more people not party to the original dispute, the more likely that RFC
is to focus on the actual issues.
As it is both the process of escalating an edit conflict, and the rules
of editing conflicts, do not promote good resolution without a good
deal of "drama processing". It is this drama processing that causes a
disproportionate share of "wikistress", and creates a disincentive for
knowledgeable people to contribute.
I can easily see other proposals designed to meet the same problems,
but I do feel this issue needs to be addressed and current procedures
refined in light of the experience so far.