[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Charles Matthews]

geni wrote:

> No your problem is that there are a large number of people from
> different backgrounds with very different world views who will read
> ultra vague text in very different ways.
>   
That's an interesting point in the context of the topic of this thread.  
When it comes to policy documents, there is no "authoritative 
interpretation".

Let's remember a few things here. Firstly, responding to complaints of 
"vagueness" by supplying huge amounts of detail comes close to "feeding 
the trolls".  The editors who want it all spelled out in black and white 
aren't those busy with compiling an encyclopedia (with the exception of 
a few areas such as "fair use").

Secondly, we aren't talking in this thread about "policy" but what the 
Arbitration Committee hands down. There you can get an "authoritative 
interpretation" - ask the AC what they meant (and whether they still 
mean it).

And thirdly - well, I'd see the current position as transitional.  There 
are a few areas of content - maybe four distinct issues - where some 
more sophisticated arrangements are going to be required by the time 
enWP enters its second decade.  BLP seems to be the most pressing (I 
calculate 200 biographies of living people per admin, so really policing 
those could become a huge drain on admin time, as it arguably is 
already). Putting aside the usual comments (ArbCom is damned if it 
behaves like an unadventurous committee, and damned if it doesn't; and 
any proposed change needs its "activation energy" to be viable, which 
individual editors can find an obstacle), we ought to be addressing the 
"governance issue" or the "constitutional deficit" or the "management of 
long-term content problems" - whatever your favourite formulation is - 
with some courage and imagination.

Charles