[WikiEN-l] Neutrality enforcement: a proposal

[stevertigo]

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Sam Korn <smoddy at gmail.com> wrote:


> 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.)
>

SV might have a point, with regard to focused "committees," however, (Yes, I
did just annihilate her concept two posts above), in spite the fears that it
might "create bureaucracy" - We already have "bureaucracy" of Arbcom and
admins and "policy" and such. We just don't quite understand how awful it
is, because we think it works.
The idea that the Arbcom can deal with issues at all is a useless one, if
anyone has ever jumped into the workings of the Arbcom. And the current
"enforcers;" an army of geeky overgrown teenagers full of concept and little
being, likewise can be problematic.

So, SV has an idea with regard to some kind of oversight council which deals
with one particular area. Why not have a council that deals with these
things on a regular basis. The Arbcom wants to be a hanging court? Fine, let
them. Let's set up something else that actually deals with issues, and not
just punishments.

-SV