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@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@gmail.com
slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/12/05, Phil Sandifer sandifer@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@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@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