I'll be away from tomorrow morning early and returning Tuesday. I'll be available by cellphone 24x7, so those of you who have that number could reach me in an emergency. I will also have net access, although I don't intend to be online much.
Remember when I had people volunteer for mediation and arbitration committees? I haven't forgotten. Expect initial appointments to those committees on December 2nd, when I get back.
If anyone still wants to volunteer, let me know.
Remember -- mediation in this context means "attempting to resolve a problem without resort to bans or restrictions of any kind, by helping two parties to a conflict find a mutually satisfactory solution", and arbitration in this context means "more mediation, but this time with ultimate resort to bans or restrictions if absolutely necessary".
The idea here is to start working towards a scalable governance solution that preserves and extends our culture of helpfulness, openness, and WikiLove.
--Jimbo
From: Jimmy Wales
I'll be away from tomorrow morning early and returning Tuesday. I'll be available by cellphone 24x7, so those of you who have that number could reach me in an emergency. I will also have net access, although I don't intend to be online much.
Remember when I had people volunteer for mediation and arbitration committees? I haven't forgotten. Expect initial appointments to those committees on December 2nd, when I get back.
If anyone still wants to volunteer, let me know.
Remember -- mediation in this context means "attempting to resolve a problem without resort to bans or restrictions of any kind, by helping two parties to a conflict find a mutually satisfactory solution", and arbitration in this context means "more mediation, but this time with ultimate resort to bans or restrictions if absolutely necessary".
Unless the membership and decision-making of these committees is fully open this will lead us to the same kind of broken, paranoid culture of Dmoz.
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.
And I *strongly* believe that for any Wikipedia problem for which there is a hierarchical solution there is also a non-hierarchical solution, which though possibly more complicated to implement technologically, will assuredly be better and more scalable.
--tc
OFFLIST
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.
It's a challenge. One of the things that I'm absolutely sticking to is a 'reserved power' of pardon, so that I can at least act as a final safety valve in case things start to go haywire. And I also, of course, would reserve the power to 'disband parliament' if necessary.
The Cunctator wrote:
From: Jimmy Wales
I'll be away from tomorrow morning early and returning Tuesday. I'll be available by cellphone 24x7, so those of you who have that number could reach me in an emergency. I will also have net access, although I don't intend to be online much.
Remember when I had people volunteer for mediation and arbitration committees? I haven't forgotten. Expect initial appointments to those committees on December 2nd, when I get back.
If anyone still wants to volunteer, let me know.
Remember -- mediation in this context means "attempting to resolve a problem without resort to bans or restrictions of any kind, by helping two parties to a conflict find a mutually satisfactory solution", and arbitration in this context means "more mediation, but this time with ultimate resort to bans or restrictions if absolutely necessary".
Unless the membership and decision-making of these committees is fully open this will lead us to the same kind of broken, paranoid culture of Dmoz.
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.
And I *strongly* believe that for any Wikipedia problem for which there is a hierarchical solution there is also a non-hierarchical solution, which though possibly more complicated to implement technologically, will assuredly be better and more scalable.
--tc
Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
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.
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.
Ec
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]
Alex R. wrote:
From: "Ray Saintonge" saintonge@telus.net
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]].
I basically agree. The mediator would really be representing Wikipedia's meta-interest of maintaining peace in the family and a general atmosphere of NPOV. Most often it would not be in Wikipedia's interest to take sides in the substance of the dispute.
I want to avoid any misunderstanding that I may have been criticising the mediator. Using your reference of a hallway settlement, suppose that a complete stranger, unknown to either party, walks by. He overhears a bit of the conversation, and decides that he has a solution for you that he then proceeds to elaborate. This can come at an inopportune time, and can at times completely derail the settlement. This would be very bad manners in the hallways of the courthous, but it's a lesson in manners which, regretably, many Wikipedians find difficult to learn.
Ec
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org