[Foundation-l] Board Resolution: Openness

[Fred Bauder]

> Fred, arbitration doesn't help in such cases. The arbitrators are not in
> a position to make editorial decisions. All they can do is tell the
> parties to control themselves, reiterate the principle of NPOV and
> decide upon further sanctions, which usually just add fuel to the fire.
> That's exactly what I was talking about in my previous message.
> Furthermore, the arbitrations are often conducted like a trial, and
> anyone who is not too acquainted with the legal language and procedures
> gets lost there.
>
> As for sanctions against disruptors - Clearly, a person who deletes
> paragraphs or adds f-words is a vandal that should be blocked. The
> problem is, that most blocked editors are not like that. Wikipedia used
> to have too major rules that are totally ignored today, namely _assume
> good faith_ and _ignore all rules_. The former rule means that any user
> has the right to be considered as a good person who came to enrich
> Wikipedia unless clearly proved otherwise. In most cases today,
> administrators assume that users (particularly new users) came to make
> disruptions unless proven otherwise. The latter rule means that
> Wikipedia is not about technicalities. If your actions are against the
> rules but derive from a sincere intention to improve Wikipedia, than you
> should not be considered a disruptor. Today, for example, a violation of
> the 3-revert rule is considered a justification for a ban, even if the
> user had a good reason to violate the rule. Even in the most harsh legal
> systems people are not always punished for breaking the law, because
> circumstances are also taken into account. It is quite awkward that
> Wikipedia, that started with the "ignore all rules" principle, has
> become even harsher with regards to users' violations of rules.
>
> Dror K

That's what we're talking about...

Fred