[Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content

[Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales]

Jean-Christophe Chazalette wrote:
> So in the same time I'm trying to make things clear on the French Village
> pump, I'd  like to have some feedback from everybody in the foundation,
> especially from the wiki veterans, not to mention Jimbo himself of course.

Of course I am sympathetic to the desires that would underlie a "yes"
vote to having the Arbitration Committee allowed to make some
decisions about the content of articles in some cases.  It is tempting
and in *some* cases would be very helpful.

But in my experience and estimation, it would cause more problems than
it solves.  The problems are at least these:

1. Arbitration can gain the support of the entire community if it is
focussed on behaviors.  Good people of all sides of all issues can agree
that working together in a kind and thoughtful manner is worthwhile.  But
good people may not agree about the exact content of an article, and it
seems unwise to have an ArbCom vote which is binding on such things.

2.  If the ArbCom can settle issues of content, then the elections for
ArbCom may end up being about voting to make sure that a certain POV
is represented.  This might be unpleasant and unhelpful.  ArbCom
members should be kind and thoughtful judges, not politicians.

---

At the same time, I think that the advantages would be minimal.  If
the problem users are got out of the way, then good users can find the
right answer for an article.  Almost never is the *content* the
problem, the problem is *people* with poor social skills, poor editing
skills, etc.  So if the ArbCom resolves the behavior issue, then the
article content can be taken care of by other others acting in the
normal wiki way.

--Jimbo