[WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list

[Fred Bauder]

> 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
>

It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would
not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it.

Fred