[Wikimedia-l] Please, let's save the Wikipedia - from itself

[David Goodman]

All live societies have conflict.   WP, with perhaps the greatest personal
and social diversity of any organization, will inevitably have quite a bit
of it.  All societies also have some form of dispute resolution. In all
societies, the purpose  of dispute resolution is to resolve disputes, not
necessarily to bring about Justice. In practice, the effect is almost
always  to resolve disputes by reinforcing the structure of the established
society against dissidents and mavericks.  A DR process sponsored and
controlled by the central organization using professionals, will do this
effectively--that is, they will effectively support the existing power
structure and the people in positions of authority. If they are clever,
they will manage to reconcile as many dissidents as possible with the
overall structure, without being too harsh on them. But if they are to be
effective, they must also deal with those who wish to subvert the structure
of the society, though a sophisticated process can also do this relatively
gently.

The centralizing tendencies of WP are already very great--in some cases too
great to permit the users to have the necessary flexibility and
independence to remain creative. The effect of multiple layers of appeal
can be to correct some injustices, but it can also more effectively
suppress individualism, by diverting direct conflicts into bureaucratic
channels & exhausting the participants with elaborate procedure.  People
may wish an arrangement to correct injustice against them--but what if the
result is to decide for their opponents? At least in the enWP, I advise
people against using any level or variant of formal DR if there is any
alternative: if you bring  a case for decision, you may permanently lose;
if you avoid formal process, you can keep trying.  Those people who have
asked me for advice and gone to arb com or AN/I or other process against my
invariable advice not to, have always been the worse for it.  The better
remedy for losing a particular argument on an issue is to work on other
issues. The better remedy for pervasive injustice is to organize
opposition.




On Sat, Sep 7, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > привет Ð¯Ñ€Ð¾Ñ Ð»Ð°Ð²,
> >
> > Yes, I am very serious. I was though only arguing about the members of
> > this instance, be it an 'arbitration committe' or an ombudsman or
> > whatever, with the duty to protect users from mobbing and abuses in the
> > Wikis.
> >
> > We must though be aware that there are very different countries in the
> > world. What is possible in one part of the world is not possible in
> > another. I am aware of the present situation in Russia and pity the
> > Russians. I think the Wikis should at least reflect the society they are
> > working in, not be worse, and it could be difficult to be better (I am
> > still just talking about stopping mobbing and abuses in the Wikis).
> >
> > I am certain that a committe could help against mobbing in Wikis even in
> > Russia and in other countries with similar kind of problems. You could
> > though perhaps, for reason that you express, not get any help from the
> > outside society. If the members of such a committe would have any
> > problems with the authorities or hooligans in such a country I don't
> > know, but that could be an argument for placing it outside Russia (and
> > other countries). Perhaps even just have one international instance.
> >
> > Let me tell you a little about my own experiences to explain what I
> > wrote. In my country we have a lot of ombudsmen to protect citizens from
> > child abuse, harassment of immigrants and a lot of other things. The
> > persons working with these questions are very public, you can find their
> > names, photos etc. on the web. I have had a lot of contacts with these
> > people during the last year. I have never heard of one single instance
> > when they have been attacked, harassed or anything else. That is quite
> > natural, I think, they have the protection of the surrounding society. If
> > someone harassed or abused them, he/she be sued or arrested.
> >
> > The situation is the same for people working against mobbing in schools
> > and companies. They are of course also public persons. Still I have never
> > heard of anyone being attacked. The reason is the same as above. If these
> > persons were anonymous it would partly look very stupid and partly they
> > could not do their job properly.
> >
> > I do not see any reason why the situation wouldn't be the same for such
> > an instance in the Wikis. As I said above the persons must be
> > professional and hired by the Wikis, to get the right authority and
> > respect. Where they are placed physically is not so important since there
> > role is only to act within the Wikis (not in the society), perhaps one
> > shouldn't choose Russia though.
> >
> > I really think that it also has a psychological role not to be anonymous.
> > The method of mobbers and extreme political movements is to dehumanize
> > it's opponents. They put a label on their enemies to make them not human.
> > I think being anonymous works in the same direction. It deprives you of
> > your identity and thus makes you easier to attack.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Lars Gardenius
>
> Indeed; however, a number of other strategies are also used to dominate.
>
> Fred
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request at lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>



-- 
David Goodman

DGG at the enWP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DGG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG