[WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms
Peter Mackay
peter.mackay at bigpond.com
Mon Nov 28 22:50:53 UTC 2005
> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Poor, Edmund W
> Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 02:45
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms
>
> > > This can also be done by a single admin, e.g. this is mostly what
> > > Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat
> them around
> > > the head with a cluebat until they realise he means it,
> then gently
> > > suggest they behave with suggestions of how to. It's
> sometimes more
> > > work than it seems like it should be, but can work if the
> idjit is
> > > cluifiable at all.
> >
> > Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
> >
> > Peter (Skyring)
>
> Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul.
> It's slipped down to relativism:
>
> We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both
> parties considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
>
> IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy
> standards (or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial
> Topic), while the other insists on being uncivil, adding
> inaccurate information, or using the article to push their
> point of view (POV)
>
> THEN
>
> * it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
> * it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other
> party being "wrong"
>
> Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce
> civility and accuracy as key values of our community - and
> stamp out bias too!
I'm totally in favour of this.
The point I was making in what may have been too subtle a fashion, is that
far too often disputes are concluded in a rankist fashion. Being a WP editor
for years doesn't make someone right (or wrong, for that matter), but it
certainly allows them to push their opinion further.
Peter (Skyring)
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list