[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Anthere]

Jean-Christophe Chazalette a écrit:

> Point 10 of the current poll offers people to vote for one of the following
> : "The arbitration does not relate on the relevance or the validity of the
> articles but only to individual behaviors (10.A)" or "the arbitration can
> relate with all the conflicts without distinction and can relate directly to
> the relevance or the validity of the articles (10.B)."


The translation is not very good villy. The word relate does not 
translate well the french term.

the originals are

10.A. L'arbitrage n'est applicable qu'aux conflits entre éditeurs sans 
jamais porter directement sur la pertinence des contenus encyclopédiques 
ni sur leur neutralité. Les arbitres examinent des comportements 
individuels sans être les juges de la validité des contenus.

10.B. l'arbitrage s'applique à tous les conflits sans distinction et 
peut porter directement sur la pertinence ou la validité des articles


Translation of 10A is this :

Arbitration will apply only to conflict between editors, without being 
related to accuracy or neutrality of encyclopedic content. The 
arbitrators will look at individual behavior without being judges of 
content validity.

-----
Translation of 10B is this :

Arbitration will apply to all type of conflicts, without distinction and 
arbitration decisions may directly be applied to relevance/accuracy or 
validity of contents.

-----

Arbitration applied directly to validity of articles may be 
interpretated by "arbitration comittee will have the authority to do 
anything it will decide to ensure neutrality or accuracy of articles. 
Anything might be reverting to a specific version or deletion."

In short, I claim that the sentence as written is allowing arbitration 
committee to become a sort of super-editor which has authority to decide 
over the community what is correct from what is not.

I do not recognise this as being acceptable within wikipedia rules, and 
I do not see that as being helpful in any way in our theoretical goal of 
reaching NPOV. Quite the opposite.

This said, there are two different groups of people, and each group is 
giving a different interpretation of the sentence. I proposed a new 
sentence to replace, but this does not hide the fact that some users 
indeed *want* an arbitration committee to decide for the community what 
is neutral and accurate in case of dispute, rather than the community 
itself.