[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[Risker]

2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>

> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 2009/6/27 stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com>:
> >
>
>
> > > You could start a thread called  "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and
> > there
> > > we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than
> > appliances.
> > > :-)
> >
> > That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke"
> > and "fix".
>
>
> Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?"
>
> Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every
> edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7
> years ago.
> You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a
> "convention" is not a "system."
>
> -Stevertigo
>

It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended
to solve.

Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss
content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear
at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to
content.

Behaviour disputes?  How will a mailing list address these better than
current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to
hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s)
whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to
join the mailing list?

Interpersonal disputes?  Again, how is a mailing list better? and what
happens when only one party joins the mailing list?

Just some thoughts.

Risker