[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

[Daniel Ehrenberg]

> If two users are fighting should it be open or
> should there by
> a closed mediation process? Mediation is typically
> confidential
> and only involves those directly involved in a
> dispute. If mediation
> fails the agreement between the parties (and this
> can all be done by
> agreement very easily because everything on
> Wikipedia is in
> writing) then it goes to whatever dispute resolution
> process is
> otherwise there.
> 
> The advantage of private mediation is it allows the
> parties to
> vent and get their disputes off their chests withouf
> the
> fear that somehow what they say will be used against
> them.
> The ideal is that by communicating (through a third
> party that
> is trained in conciliation and compromise) that the
> parties actually
> understand each other better.
> 
> I think this might be useful on Wikipedia because it
> is such
> a communal and cooperative environment. Of course
> the privacy
> is done is a way that there is no record, but if the
> mediation
> resolves, then there is no need for there to be a
> record, it is
> all reduced to a mediation resolution agreement and
> anything
> discussed during mediation is not recorded.

This looks useful, but it sounds like it would either:
a) require everyone's email address, which we don't
want to do, but it would make an effective mediation
system.
or
b) make a complex messaging system within wikipedia,
which would be beneficial, but might be difficult or
time-consuming to code and would also slow Wikipedia
down.
> 
> In arbitration this is going to be someone who acts
> as an impartial
> decision maker. That might be Jimbo, but there could
> be a committee
> that has a few online members who have some training
> in this
> area and who are prepared to see the process
> through. Many
> arbitration proceedings also use three arbitrators.
> One chosen
> by each side and the third chosen by the two
> arbitrators in
> order to insure some kind of impartiality. They
> could also
> make a decision that could be submitted to Jimbo and
> he
> could either confirm the decision or decide to grant
> the
> user clemency in his discretion as our personal Lord
> and Master.
> (Hear ye, hear ye, the Court of Jimbo's Bench is now
> is sesssion!)
>
> [lots of complex procedures]

Wikipedia's goal is to make an encyclopedia, not a
judicial system. Any big debates that are not solved
by mediation could just go on village pump, an article
talk page, or, if it's really hard to resolve, the
mailing list. A private messaging system would be
useful (but possibly difficult to impliment), but more
than that would be too much. The user talk system
seems to work well currently; maybe I missed something
about an actual problem with it that's come up.
LDan

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com