[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

[Alex R.]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "blairr" <blairr at telus.net>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"


> That's good for vandals, but what about problem users.
> For things like strange edits (eg Nuuk/Godthab), and users that have made
> POV changes, as well as other things.
> 
> I like the idea of mediation by a select group of users, as well as
> empowering these users, if the user-in-question does not change their
> behavior, to orchestrate bans.
> 
> - Vancouverguy

I would keep the mediators and arbitrators two distinct
groups. If you go in front of a mediator and know they
have been or might be an arbitrator then you may not
consider them your friend.

Mediation and arbitration are two very different processes.
Mediation is trying to get people to talk, communicate
and come to some kind of compromise. Mediators allow
people to take any position they want and then they try
to have the parties see the position of the other side to
appreciate it and see if there is any merit in the other side's
POV. It is really a lot like the NPOV process we encourage
here.

An arbitratror (from ancient Roman origins) is a neutral decision
maker who looks at the differentPOVs and tries to find the
proper interpretation of the parties differing POVs to find
the controlling opnion in terms of rules and events and
the interpretation of those rules in relation to the events.
While the arbitrator (or arbitration committee) must only
come to one opinion it may not even be the opinions of
the parties, they may decide on a third opinion. Also the
parties going into arbitration basically agree that whatever
decision the arbitrator comes to will be binding on both
of them. Thus they are giving up their particular position
in an appeal to the impartiality of the arbitration process.

You can't talk to an arbitrator the way you talk to a mediator.
 Also the arbitration process is open to some scrutiny 
(though it may not be public as in a court because it is done 
by the consent of the parties not through the coersion of
 the state). Mediation cannot really work unless it is 
confidential and the parties do not fear a penalty for 
somehow failing in the mediation process.

Sorry for goiing on but these are two incredibly complex
processes that have very long histories and many 
different types of manifestation in the behavior of
groups of people so it is very difficult to take all the
knowledge I have about these two processes and
condence them down into layperson nutshells. Please
excuse my verbosity!

Alex756