[Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content

[Anthere]

Nod, to me, what delirium and you describe seem fair.



Fred Bauder a écrit:
> What we do is ban the POV warrior from the area they are focusing on. And
> invite them to edit other areas. We don't get into the content of the
> article. We let that take care of itself. Often we don't even seriously look
> at it. What we look at the the POV warrior's edits as he deletes others
> points of view and continually inserts his own.
> 
> Fred
> 
> 
>>From: Anthere <anthere9 at yahoo.com>
>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:21:04 +0200
>>To: foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Re: Arbitration committe and content
>>
>>As the english committee ever given as one of the arbitration decision
>>"revert this article to this person version which is the neutral one" or
>>"delete this article as being inaccurate and irrelevant".
>>
>>If you did so, how does the community feel with the AC deciding alone
>>what is correct from what is not, and what is done afterwards if another
>>unrelated editors revert back to the version you considered incorrect.
>>
>>If you did not do so, do you think you might do it one day ? And how are
>>things handled for now ?
>>
>>ant
>>
>>
>>Fred Bauder a écrit:
>>
>>>What happens in practice during arbitration on the English Wikipedia is that
>>>disputes over content are handled by treating those who insist on putting a
>>>certain point of view across as violating [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is
>>>not]], the section on propaganda and advocacy. As POV warriors often engage
>>>in frantic reverting and personal attacks, policies which address those
>>>problems are also often involved.
>>>
>>>NPOV policy theoretically permits both sides of a controversy to be included
>>>in an article, disputes over content are usually encountered in situations
>>>where a POV warrior insists on both his side being included and the other
>>>viewpoint excluded.
>>>
>>>There is the viewpoint perhaps best represented by Larry Sanger, but by a
>>>few others that views on a subject currently held by academic professionals
>>>trumps other viewpoints. We have never resolved that issue.
>>>
>>>Fred, Arbitration Committee
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>From: "Jean-Christophe Chazalette" <jean-christophe.chazalette at laposte.net>
>>>>Reply-To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>>Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200
>>>>To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l at wikimedia.org>
>>>>Subject: [Foundation-l] Arbitration committe and content
>>>>
>>>>French Wikipedia has chosen to set up an arbitration committee by a vast
>>>>majority of 85,24 % (pros 52 people, cons 9 people) during a poll that took
>>>>place from sept.19 to oct. 24. There is now a second and last poll about the
>>>>arbitration rules.
>>>>
>>>>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)."
>>>>
>>>>There were in the past some serious edit wars about various topics or
>>>>articles, often related to religion or eco-sciences.
>>>>
>>>>The current poll is expected  to last until nov. 7 and could lead to
>>>>enforceable rules if at least 20 have voted.
>>>>
>>>>Now, I am told that the alternative 10.B is completely out of the line
>>>>regarding wiki philosophy. An arbitration committee could never settled a
>>>>dispute in giving a mandatory point of view regarding an article. That makes
>>>>sense to me. But yet, 6 people voted in favor of 10.B.
>>>>
>>>>Anthere seems to see a very serious risk of "fork" here. Even if I support
>>>>her point of view I'm wondering if it's not a big fuss out of a small thing.
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>villy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>foundation-l mailing list
>>>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>foundation-l mailing list
>>foundation-l at wikimedia.org
>>http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-
> 
> l