[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Fred Bauder]

What we do is ban the POV warrior from the area they are focusing on. And
invite them to edit other areas. We don't get into the content of the
article. We let that take care of itself. Often we don't even seriously look
at it. What we look at the the POV warrior's edits as he deletes others
points of view and continually inserts his own.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
> 
> As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision
> "revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or
> "delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
> 
> If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone
> what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another
> unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
> 
> If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are
> things handled for now ?
> 
> ant
> 
> 
> Fred Bauder a écrit:
>> What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that
>> disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a
>> certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
>> not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage
>> in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those
>> problems are also often involved.
>> 
>> NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included
>> in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations
>> where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other
>> viewpoint excluded.
>> 
>> There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a
>> few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals
>> trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
>> 
>> Fred, Arbitration Committee
>> 
>> 
>>> From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" <jean-christophe.chazalette at laposte.net>
>>> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200
>>> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>> Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
>>> 
>>> French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
>>> majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
>>> place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
>>> arbitration rules.
>>> 
>>> Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
>>> : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
>>> articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
>>> relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
>>> the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."
>>> 
>>> There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
>>> articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
>>> 
>>> The current poll is expected  to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
>>> enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
>>> 
>>> Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
>>> regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
>>> dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
>>> sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
>>> 
>>> Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
>>> her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
>>> So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
>>> pump, I'd  like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
>>> especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.
>>> 
>>> Thanks.
>>> 
>>> villy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> foundation-l mailing list
>>> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l