From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
Jimmy Wales wrote:
I'm with you 100% on the openness thing, and probably with you on the hierarchy thing, too. And don't even get me started on dmoz's broken culture.
The Cunctator wrote:
Claims that mediation and arbitration can't work without secrecy are false.
Or to be more positive: any structure set up which involves a level of secrecy, if we are to move past the benevolent dictator model, MUST have formal methods of ensuring accountability and oversight by the general community--that is, everyone, including non-Wikipedians.
Arbitration should be a completely open process, where everybody knows all that is happening. This may be different for mediation where the objective is to have the warring parties come to some agreement.
I agree with this statement in the context of Wikipedia. Since we are all involved in the collective maintenance of Wikipedia the arbitration agreement is something that we are all part of and we should be able at least to watch as spectators as it progresses.
Mediation is fundamentally different in objective. It is true that sometimes mediators and arbitrators are the same individuals (such as judges who try to settle cases before they go to trial) but the format of mediation is conciliatory, the parties try to see each other's perspectives and then resolve their differences amicably. That can be done quietly between those involved, of course what is being mediated are disputes with the Wikipedia community, so someone must represent Wikipedia's interests in the mediation and this is why, imo, it gets complicated to manage as a process. Who decides who represents Wikipedia. Is it the mediator or is it some third party who knows what the complaints are for the community against the individual? I still don't see that any general consensus has been reached on that point.
The last thing that the mediator needs when he is trying to resolve a delicate question is to have a hamhanded newcomer to the war throwing flames when the matter is none of his business. That can drive away one combatant, and harden the other in his position.
Here I would say that this is suggesting that the mediator should not be the person or body representing Wikipedia's interests directly (of course the mediator is trying to help Wikipedia's interests by dealing with a problem user, but the role is to listen to the problem user and the complaints, not to side with those making complaints).
Another point is that mediation can sometimes occur without the intervention of a mediator per se. In court yesterday I was the mediator between my client ( a corporation) and the other side. True, I am not completely impartial, but I am trying to resolve the issues between the two sides, and convince both my client to settle and the other side (who was not represented) to settle by getting them both to see the limitations of their respective claims. It happens in the hallways of the courhouse without anyone listening and with no record but it one of the most important things I do in the resolution of disputes because it produces results on many occasions sort of like the idea of a [[User:User Advocate]].
Alex from Brooklyn [en:user:alex756]