[WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[Sam Korn]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 9:22 PM, stevertigo <stvrtg at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Durova <nadezhda.durova at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Please help me nuke it before this well-intentioned notion of arbitration
>> does any more damage.
>>
>> -Durova
>>
>
> And the thought that "NPOV enforcers" would be doing this "enforcing," is..
> it.. it just does not generate the warm and fuzzy feeling we look for in
> good ideas.
>
> It's bad enough we have an Arbcom that likes to think it should'nt have to
> explain itself to anybody, let alone discuss things openly. Your vision of
> enforcement only conjures up a vision of Sean Connery in red daipers and on
> horseback, shooting at people indiscriminately with a revolver.
>
> SV's choice of scope: "..on Israel-Palestine articles.." cannot be serious.
> Everyone knows that theres some subjectivity involved there. "Neutrality" in
> that context can only found through lots of shuckling and jihad.
>
> SV says: "[this idea] could be extended to other intractable disputes if it
> works.."  Parsing: "Intractable disputes.." [solved by] "enforcement" of
> [abstract concept], [by] 'enforcers of [abstract concept].' Sounds like
> Zardoz to me.
>

This is the key point, I think.  We don't have an absolute definition
of neutrality.  We don't even have a "I know it when I see it" kind of
system.  Neutrality -- everywhere -- is a work in progress.  Now,
SlimVirgin recognises this, which is why the proposal reads

"However, looking at an editor's contributions as a whole, it should
be clear to any reasonable, and reasonably well-informed, onlooker
that the editor is regularly and substantively trying to be fair to
both sides."

That is obviously an attempt to move away from requiring neutrality
and towards requiring a good-faith effort towards neutrality, which is
the only way the proposal could work.

Nevertheless, I do not think this is enough to actually make it work.
The problem is that these disputes are so deep-seated and
controversial that such a system will be the subject of constant
attempts at gaming.  The problem will not be fixed but merely moved.

The other problem is that the system pretends that "it should be clear
to any reasonable ... onlooker" how the editor is trying to act.
Often, this will be the case.  Just as often, however, it will not be
so very absolutely clear and will rely greatly on the perception of
the onlooker.  This, I think, is the fatal flaw, because it is the
assumption that the whole proposal rests on, that it is always so
obvious who is trying to edit in a neutral and helpful fashion and who
is being biased.

(One additional problem is that it will create bureaucracy --
Wikipedians love bureaucracy and this would turn into something like a
rolling Israel-Palestine ArbCom.  I don't think that that would be a
positive change.)

Sam

-- 
Sam
PGP public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sam_Korn/public_key