[WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman

[Peter Mackay]

> From: wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org 
> [mailto:wikien-l-bounces at Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Fred Bauder
 
> True, but he has it set up more as an appeals court. A 
> ombudsman in the sense you set forth would be welcome. I 
> wouldn't mind at all someone dropping me a note, saying "Hey, 
> cool it, you're getting carried away [with whatever]." We all 
> need feedback. We don't need a second-guessing czar. Things 
> are hard enough the first time.

OK, I didn't read the proposal. I don't think we need an appeals court that
isn't Jimbo. Not just yet, anyway. But I'd like to see an independent
person, possibly with a staff of helpers, review cases of perceived
injustice.

I'm not going to bring up old meals again, but I could certainly have used
someone like that a few months ago.

However, I don't think that there's much point in having an ombudsman,
because the community would want to elect him or her, and the end result
would be that the community would elect exactly the same sort of person that
they had elected to the ArbCom, resulting in an unsurprising groupthink.

I've just cast my eye over the voting process for the ArbCom and I have got
to say that it sucks. Every editor gets multiple votes, because they can
support or oppose every single candidate. That's like a single voter being
able to vote twice over in every voting district in the country. The end
result will be a remarkably uniformly thinking ArbCom that has the support
of a majority, while the minority will find that their views are
unrepresented.

To put it in party political terms, this is like having a Republican elected
in every single voting district (supposing the country to have a majority of
Republican voters), because any local differences will be smoothed out.

While I realise that WP is not a democracy, and we aren't quite at the stage
of organised factions or political parties, I cannot view such an situation
as leading to tranquility and stability.

Peter (Skyring)