[WikiEN-l] Wikimediation

[steve v]

In general I like the idea of Mediation reform, but
there are some things to sort out, namely that
specific proposals require some practical
justification. First of all, having "Mediation" and
"Wikimediation" steps in the same WP:DR process can be
confusing -- where's the line with regard to roles
between the two? Secondly, WP:MC is so out of the loop
vis-à-vis the WP:AC, that its not proper to claim that
there is a direct line of process there. 

I always thought it silly for MC to be an AC lite
anyway. WP:MC was originally built in as an
afterthought to the AC, and to assert a finer
difference, some strict bounds were implemented,
because 1) it was thought that mediators should be
prevented from becoming like the Arbcom, and 2) so
that somehow through strict WMIN (~WWIN) definitions,
its role would be more defined and sensible. IMHO
whats happened is that its generally been a bit
confused. MC was defined relative to AC, but without a
clear vision to what MC could do that would persist
through WPs since quadrupling in size and users.
Having no binding authority, and otherwise bogged down
with a "mutual acceptance" policy (now experimentally
being torched BTW), the result has been a bit
disorganized, and slow. 

For what purpose does MC exist, then? The values
promoted by the mediating role are ones which should
be  promoted for everyone, not just a committee. I
think that weve had some things backwards with MC for
a while, and I think WP would be better served with an
open Mediation process. 

Then what should the current MC committee do? Oversee
the open committee? I dont know. Ive suggested an NPOV
committee would be useful, which sort of interprets
NPOV issues case by case, and makes a centralized
reference database for how to approach these cases.
Depending on your view of disputes on WP and the
disruptiveness of these toward articles and their
improvement, then you can say an NPOV committee is
either a great thing or waste of time. 

Recap: Promote open mediation / moderation principles
-- consolodate specific NPOV debates to a committee.

~S







I like the idea of opening up the 



--- Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> I certainly wouldn't think that Wikimediation rules
> out eventual  
> escalation to the arbcom. I mean, it would be stupid
> to guarantee  
> that Wikimediation will fix all problems. It won't.
> So I guess my  
> question would be whether you could go into
> Wikimediation with a  
> sincere belief that it might help the problem. If
> you can, go for it.  
> If you are just going because you want to check off
> the requirement  
> for the arbcom, it's probably a lost cause.
> 
> I'd personally hope the former is the case, and so
> encourage you to  
> try it, but I'm not inside your head and can't tell
> you if you think  
> it has any hope of working.
> 
> -Snowspinner
> 
> On Jul 12, 2005, at 4:45 PM, <slimvirgin at gmail.com> 
> 
> <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer <sandifer at sbcglobal.net>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hot on the heels of my comments about the RfC
> procedure, I've created
> >> [[Wikipedia:Wikimediation]], which I think will
> work much like I want
> >> RfC to work, without leading to agonizing debates
> over whether to
> >> change something. Basically, it's an opportunity
> for communal
> >> mediation, where people can leave constructive
> comments on how
> >> disputes and behavior might be handled better and
> more productively.
> >>
> >
> > Phil, I think this is a great idea. Thanks for
> setting it up.
> >
> > I have a question. You wrote on the page that it's
> not intended as a
> > dry run for an RfC or arbitration, because it's
> intended to be
> > non-confrontational. However, if someone were to
> take a case through
> > Wikimediation, do you envisage that it could be
> cited as part of the
> > dispute-resolution process to allow a case to
> proceed before the
> > arbcom? Or is your preference that the two be kept
> entirely separate?
> >
> > The reason I ask is that I'm currently dealing
> with an editor who's in
> > the habit of launching personal attacks. I'm
> considering approaching
> > the arbcom, and so I have to begin dispute
> resolution. I really
> > dislike the RfC process because it becomes so
> vitriolic, and so I'm
> > thinking about writing it up for Wikimediation
> instead. However, one
> > of my aims in doing so would be to fulfill the
> arbcom requirement of
> > having tried alternative means of resolving the
> issue.
> >
> > Would you see that as an inappropriate use of
> Wikimediation?
> >
> > Sarah
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> 




		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs