[WikiEN-l] Oversized criticism sections and WP:UNDUE (was: Notability and ski resorts)

[Charles Matthews]

Marc Riddell wrote:
> on 9/25/09 5:36 PM, Fred Bauder at fredbaud at fairpoint.net wrote:
>
>   
>> It is more a matter of editors taking back the wiki from the tiny
>> minority that is abusing others. You can't vote for people who openly
>> advocate not enforcing civility rules and expect the arbitration
>> committee to do much. Look back in the history of the arbitration
>> committee and you will find that its original purpose was to deal with
>> gross violations of Wikiquette, see
>>
>>
>> Erik Moeller wrote:
>>
>> "RK was tolerated because he contributed good material. But how much good
>> material has not been contributed because of his well documented
>> behavioral problems? In my opinion, we need to set clearer rules on
>> Wikiquette and be serious about enforcing them, with a well-defined
>> protocol of warning, temporary banning, permanent banning etc. Maybe
>> there could be a 5-10 member Wikiquette "committee" where violations
>> could be reported and decisions would be made by voting."
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>     
> These comments are refreshing, and the suggested actions would have an
> enormous impact on the quality of collaboration in the Project. All healthy,
> constructive collaboration must include healthy, constructive dialogue.
>
>   
Traditionally, though, the problem has been underestimated. One need not 
adopt the language of "regulatory capture", as David Gerard does, to 
look the issues in the eye:

(1) There is actually no substantive consensus position that uncivil 
editors are a net negative to the site;
(2) Practical implementation of measures has proved completely divisive;
(3) The waters are fairly comprehensively muddied by those who take up 
tactical positions amounting to the assertion that any arbitrator who 
attempts to enforce the civility policy is part of the problem, not part 
of the solution.

In terms of "crafted" remedies, we see this clearly enough in that 
civility paroles have proved hard to enforce, and those who do try to 
enforce them are (fairly systematically) embroiled by insult. This 
rather suggests we have gone past the point where ad hoc solutions might 
have worked.

Charles