At 20:49 18/04/2006, you wrote:
2006/4/18, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com:
How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained
the donor?
Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service" in the dispute resolution process?
I don't think we do... At least I would not want anything that looks like sponsor influence on content.
I'm just saying that I would; and I guess that it doesn't matter if the advocate knows who the sponsor is, as it doesn't matter if an administrator or arbitrator knows who brings a regular case to their attention.
I just feel that my time can be better spend editing articles, rather than having spent 80% of my time arguing over them.
And it can't hurt to try it out?
Regards, Ian Tresman
On 4/18/06, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
At 20:49 18/04/2006, you wrote:
2006/4/18, Tomer Chachamu the.r3m0t@gmail.com:
How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained
the donor?
Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service" in the dispute resolution process?
I don't think we do... At least I would not want anything that looks like sponsor influence on content.
I'm just saying that I would; and I guess that it doesn't matter if the advocate knows who the sponsor is, as it doesn't matter if an administrator or arbitrator knows who brings a regular case to their attention.
[Private chat with WikipeDian] <R3m0t> hey, I heard you had a dispute - can you recommend an advocate? I'm sick of this crackpot on [[Time Cube]] <WikipeDian> well, Angela doesn't have any cases at the moment ([[WP:AVL]]) but you certainly shouldn't pick [[User:YAA]] <WikipeDian> I heard that in the last ten cases, she only ruled in favour of the sponsor four times! <R3m0t> seriously? that's ridiculous
The advocate has a financial incentive to rule in favour of the sponsor, even if the actual money is kept by Wikimedia.
I just feel that my time can be better spend editing articles, rather than having spent 80% of my time arguing over them.
Maybe you can find some quieter articles. :)
Besides, does the advocate really get editorial control? That's very unusual for us.
And it can't hurt to try it out?
I think it could.
On 4/18/06, Ian Tresman it@knowledge.co.uk wrote:
I'm just saying that I would; and I guess that it doesn't matter if the advocate knows who the sponsor is, as it doesn't matter if an administrator or arbitrator knows who brings a regular case to their attention.
I just feel that my time can be better spend editing articles, rather than having spent 80% of my time arguing over them.
And it can't hurt to try it out?
Regards, Ian Tresman
Sure it could. These things have a tendency to live on. How long ago was the Seigenthaler affair, and how often do we still hear about it? There are still people who think we banned anonymous editting entirely because of that.
~maru
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org