On 4/18/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
At 20:49 18/04/2006, you wrote:
2006/4/18, Tomer Chachamu
<the.r3m0t(a)gmail.com>om>:
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.