[WikiEN-l] Loose ends (was other stuff)

[Charles Matthews]

stevertigo wrote:
> Charles Matthews <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>   
>> I believe you are misreading what is said here. It is not being stated
>> that Arbcom has no time to do the job. Rather, it is being stated that
>> if it wants to do the job, it doesn't also have the time to deal with
>> all the heckling and rewriting of history that can go on after a case is
>> closed.
>>     
>
> I appreciate the correction. My point simply was that there is a place
> for "heckling," even after the close of the case. The issue then is
> how to focus that signal - irritating as worn-out-brakes it may be -
> into something coherent.
>
> The distinction here is that its a fatal error to characterize what
> people say as just wiki-lawyering, when the issue is solveable through
> broader signal enhancing techniques, that if Arbcom wants to, we can
> start exploring.
>   
There is _more_ of an argument for this approach now, than there was 
when Arbcom was closing 100 cases a year. Then the "be gruesome" (sei 
grausam) approach of saying "get over it" was fairly clearly applicable: 
appeal in 3 months or 6 months if you must, but don't assume everything 
on the site revolves round you. Now the acceptance filter means it is 
mainly big, complicated cases that go to arbitration, and perhaps a 
paragraph afterwards in the Signpost is a little scanty. But this is 
what blogs are for, surely. And blogging onsite is basically a bad idea. 
If there is an argument to put, why not write it up coherently offisite 
and send the Arbcom a link?

Carcharoth wrote

>Actually, having seen this (and contrary to my previous e-mail):

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Advisory_Council_on_Project_Development#Still_viable.3F

>I think all it needs is someone to drag things forward a bit. That
>might still happen. It does seem that the ACPD is currently more
>active than the other proposals. 

"Loose ends" means an endemic lack of closure to onsite discussions. Quite unlike the pre-filtering of arbitration cases, there is no forum onsite, I believe (who knows the whole site these days?), in which general policy matters pass through a preliminary "interesting/rehashed and dull" gate, after which they could have some fuller status of live topics. Should there be?

And are these two halves of something?

Charles