[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration progress report #2

[Dan Drake]

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 02:16:55 UTC, Sean Barrett 
<sean at epoptic.org> wrote:

> > I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your 
> > condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.
> 
> You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
> have me removed.  Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me.  As
> an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
> step down, I will.
> 
> > The only argument you have given 
> > against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.
> 
> I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
> arguments.  I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
> think I should.
> ...

I assume that the arbitration process, like any other that I can think of,
will allow some choice to the arbitrees in the selection of arbitrators. 
This raises an interesting question: the built-in advantage of people who 
have participated in Wikipedia for a while over the newcomer.  The former 
are likely to know something of the arbitrators, and can protect their 
interests by making better-informed judgments.

It would be only fair, though I suppose it would be impractical, to create
profiles of the arbitrators. Then a newbie would know what positions the 
various people have taken on the subject of arbitration, and would not 
make the mistake of accepting someone who simply refuses to enforce some 
published policy of Wikipedia because he doesn't feel like it and nobody 
can make him.  Just fpr example.