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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
<slimvirgin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer
<sandifer(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page