[WikiEN-l] User names

[Alex R.]

From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>

> Yes, and that reflection goes farther than Wikipedia.  We've lost the
> skill of discussing our problems with our neighbors; we're afraid of the
> reaction that we might get from a direct approach.  It's much easier to
> surprise him with a visit from the police or a subpoena from small
> claims court.

But then they quickly learn that going to court is rarely a quick
fix, there are a million and one rules, the police often refused to
intervene
in civil disputes and even if they get a judgment against their neighbor
it may be difficult to enforce it.  If they are intelligent (and know a
lawyer who is not just out to create disputes and billable hours)
 they find out quickly that it is much more effective (and cost
efficient) to find a resolution mechanism that can help deal
with the problems and minimizes animosity in the process.

Quite frankly I think most serious people do try to discuss their problems
and do try and find an amicable approach before turning to some "official
power" this is what was behind my points about mediation, it is not
some "appeal to officiated power" it is a sincere attempt (without legal
procedure) to resolve differences, not creating all kinds of rules, roles
and rhetoric.  It does not need another structure as User:Mediator was
suggesting. It needs people who can listen and are listening to
all the sides of a dispute and who wish to try to help those on different
sides of the issues to better appreciate a different point of view and
find what is good and reasonable  in the differing perspectives. Mediation
is not an institution it is a creative process in which people particulate
if they have the willingness to do so. A mediator should be impartial
and should not take sides or state to people that they "need" mediation
because they appear to have violated some norm.

Those who run to court quickly learn that judges and
the police and prosecutors do not want to deal with most of  the disputes
that have no real legal basis but are based upon personality differences.
That is one reason those TV court shows so popular, you see how
ridiculous people can be.  Reasonable people usually resolve their
differences, the rules are only there for the hard cases or for those
who interpret events through some idiosyncratic theory.

Some of this talk about "rights" should be tempered with the
recognition that what is being discussed may be a "privilege" or
an "obligation" that has been violated. The aphorism we often
hear from HR professors is: "Freedom of the press is freedom
to own the press" not freedom to tell the owners of the press
what to do.  Anyone has the right to start their own press, their
own wiki or even their own encyclopedia, not to impose their
ideas or opinions on others, but to put it out there on their own
into the "marketplace of ideas". It is perfectly reasonable for
Wikipedia to have limits on all sorts of kinds of behaviours.

Alex756