[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Fred Bauder]

I approve of this idea but it has been rejected by the users of the English
Wikipedia. It was not included in the jurisdiction of the Arbitration
Commitee. There was very little support for it.

Fred

> From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
> Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:17:28 +0200
> To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
> 
> 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.