[WikiEN-l] ArbCom Legislation

[Charles Matthews]

David Goodman wrote:
> Yes, the existing BLP policy page is the result of many compromises,
> where various more extreme proposals were reduced to something which
> does, after all, have the general consent of the community. (Not that
> I like all of it, perhaps nobody does, but it's been relatively stable
> recently and seems to be something that we can live with.)
>
> The proper way to change the policy there is not to try to subvert it
> by persuading arb com to overturn the policy by their autonomous
> action,, but discuss it widely and get actual consensus.
>   

I think we should slow down here.  Wikipedia is the "free 
encyclopedia".  What does that mean?  "Free" has several connotations 
there, but not the same as in "free press".  That's Point One, really, 
the baseline in the whole discussion.  We know what Wikipedia is about: 
it's about the unimpeded posting of content that falls within its 
"content policies".  That's Point Two: there have always been content 
policies, and they have been modified over time, but the idea that 
Wikipedia operates to facilitate the posting of content within policy, 
and only within that policy, is always with us.

Therefore (Point Three) there really is a valid distinction, at this top 
level, between "policy" (read here "content policy") and "enforcement".  
In the big picture, what is allowed in Wikipedia, and what Wikipedia 
does about conformity to the content policy, are two different things.  
I see this getting lost in the second para above.  The ArbCom are not 
"overturning" BLP as content policy.  No such idea in the Arbitrators' 
heads. 

To address what I'd see as the typical concerns on content of 
biographies of living people, we have indeed "extremes" like the 
"whitewash" at one end, and the activist-style "getting the word out", 
at the other. Any admin using sanctions to apply a consistent whitewash 
of an article should, I think, be called out on this, by WP:OWN.  Indeed 
the emphasis on "uninvolved admins" only making use of powers addresses 
this issue  - it would be entirely justifiable to ask an admin to hand 
over any sanctions to another one, in the case of serial enforcement on 
one article.  The idea of Wikipedia leading the charge in placing 
personal information online, in a very prominent place, tends in 
practice to be sullied by activist "conflict of interest": it is 
important to know this about this politician or this businessman because 
of other interests.  In cases I know about detail (e.g. [[Acharya S]], 
[[Johann Hari]]) the problems are in the end driven by conflict of 
interest in this sense.

> This should be resisted as we would resist any other attempt by a
> cabal to take over Wikipedia. (I don't of course mean by defiance.
> Perhaps at least the 1/3 change will be enough to affect the usually
> fragile majorities there, though I hope it will not be necessary  to
> wait until December.  One strong person can make a difference on
> ArbCom. I doubt this would have happened if NYBrad had not been forced
> to resign.   The only serious question I have is whether we should
> concentrate on this, on the sourcing adjuration board, or make it a
> matter of general policy that their scope extends only to individuals
> and procedure.)
>   

You might like to consider the relationship between our BLP handling and 
NYB's departure, for a moment of silence.  (I'll ignore the rest of the 
strong words here. The community is perfectly free to elect in future 
only Arbitrators who promise never to be pro-active on any front.)

Charles