The Peter principle would be hard at work here. Any decent advocate would seem to destined to be an arbitrator, but in fact the skills are different. Advocacy is presentation of a point of view, arbitration is deciding between points of view. Lack of application to digging though mountains of evidence does not vitiate understanding of appropriate choice of alternatives.
Fred
On Oct 5, 2005, at 4:10 PM, Michael Turley wrote:
On 10/5/05, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/5/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
One of the things which would greatly improve functioning and retention of arbitrators is effective advocates who would select and present evidence which illustrated the contentions of the parties. As it is now the arbitrators themselves are forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap which the parties advance as "evidence" and try to figure out on their own what is going on.
Fred
I'll second that!
Who would be insane enough to take the position, yet reliable enough to be useful at it?
The assistants would be "forced to view the ridiculous amounts of irrelevant crap" and then, after wading through the morass of garbage, nearing enlightenment and ultimate understanding of the conflict, give it over to others to make the decisions.
I don't know anyone willing to do that.
It works in the judicial system because of the hierarchy of reward and responsibilities; pay your dues, and you can work your way up to a better job, more prestige, and more pay. But on Wikipedia, everything is egalitarian; there are few paths "up", and going "up" doesn't earn you much. If you change that, so everything isn't as flat as it can be as still run smoothly, you'll ruin the Wiki.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l