I recommend
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion,
I asked for 3rd party involvement in a situation when I was dealing with an
editor who was removing valid sources that were from a liberal-leaning
source & replacing them with questionable right-wing sources. After I
reverted the edits & engaged the editor, the editor kept repeating over &
over that the reason the source was invalid,was because of the website from
where it came. The editor ignored any arguments about the high quality of
the writing and citations in the source itself. When I engaged
Wikipedia:Third_opinion, two uninvolved editors showed up in the
discussion, identified themselves as neutral & uninvolved, reviewed the
discussion, & engaged the other editor. The other editor immediately
stopped ranting & there was no other issue with that editor, at least for
that one article.
I think that this approach might benefit other online conflicts such as the
ones that you write about.
Yours,
Peaceray
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:20 PM, Vicky Knox <vknoxsironi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi gendergap folks!
I hope you're well. :]
I'm writing conflict resolution documentation for LocalWiki (
https://localwiki.org/main/Front_Page), a global local knowledge commons.
Do you have any conflict resolution resources for online communities, or
conflict resolution examples from Wikimedia projects you'd like to
recommend? I'm particularly interested in examples of online nonviolent
communication modalities, and intersectional feminist perspectives on
online conflict resolution in communities of mixed real name and *nym
identities. (This all said, I'm open to all suggestions--I've lurked this
list for a while and highly value the perspectives I've found on it.)
Thank you!
Vicky
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap