Rebecca wrote:
>On 6/5/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>That's why I want to breath new life into the Mediation Committee. I
>>think Mediation shouldn't be another step towards banning either party
>>but a genuine effort at resolving the problem.
>>
>>--Mgm
>>
>>
>The point is that it didn't work before, and there's been no idea of
>how to fix the issue that ruined things before - that none of us are
>trained mediators, and most of us simply did not have the skills to
>bring antagonistic, warring parties together. We'd all like a
>mediation committee that worked, but wishing doesn't necessarily make
>it so.
>
>
I don't think the problem with mediation is a lack of training or skills
(no offense, but by and large I wouldn't call the arbitrators
professionally trained either). Mediation can be handled by anybody with
good sense, patience, and the ability to resist getting over-agitated by
the emotions of the disputing parties. We actually have had quite a few
instances of successful mediation, but many of them have happened
outside the formal process, often handled by people who are not part of
the Mediation Committee.
However, I agree that formal mediation is not working terribly well for
us. One of the biggest challenges for Wikipedia mediation is simply the
fact that we're stuck in an online, text-only medium. This affects
mediation more dramatically than the other dispute resolution processes,
because it takes away a key element of what normally makes mediation
successful.
One of the reasons mediation works is because it brings the parties
together, *face-to-face* and with an observer present. This brings into
play all kinds of social inhibitions that force the parties to tone down
their hostility and aggression. The resulting atmosphere is much more
conducive for the mediator and the parties to work together and find a
mutually acceptable solution.
Wikipedia mediation doesn't have a feasible way to recreate these
conditions, and I doubt that even real-time communication via IRC can
overcome this handicap. The lowered barriers against being deliberately
offensive and the ease of miscommunication when using text are too great
a challenge. As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely
to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning
and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require
watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a
more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting
for cases to come to them.
--Michael Snow
Your list of British Jews OMITS:
Professor Alec Boksenberg, Astronomer, Cambridge University, (Chair UK UNESCO Commission), formerly Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, who now works at the Institute of Astronomy.
Jeni Barnett
TV personality and presenter, currently presenting ITV1's Too Many Cooks.
I wonder how many other omissions there are... - ?
Gillian Younger
David Gerard wrote ...
>Basically: most of the really poisonous arseholes have in fact been kicked
>off en: Wikipedia, and when new ones show up they are ejected in reasonable
>order. (In a lot of cases, it's not even reaching the AC as they're dealt
>with as obvious vandals and trolls by WP:AN/I.) So now the AC is getting a
>lot of grey-area cases that are really a proxy for a content dispute. What
>to do about this?
David, this is an issue I and others have raised repeatedly over the past
years: many irresolvable disputes center on content, and Wikipedia needs a
mechanism for dealing with these content-based disputes. Several people
(with some notable exceptions) argued that the ArbCom can handle this, and
should. RJII on the Capitalism page was an attempt to take those people at
their word, and have the ArbCom handle a content dispute. Fred Bauder
seemed to be the only one on the ArbCom to take an interest in this
case. Needless to say, after a month or more of arguing and reverts, I and
several people simply left the capitalism article, to await an ArbCom
decision. Then the ArbCom declared that, since we had left, there was no
more conflict, so the situation was resolved!
What we need first is a ruling by or concerning the ArbCom that it will
consider and pass judgements on content-based disputes, or it will not. We
just need to make this clear, one way or the other.
And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to
develop another committee or mechanism.
I am repeating something I have said several times in the past. This issue
is not new.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Erik Moeller wrote:
> Steven-
>
>> I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote. We all
>> come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people
>> know a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux,
>> and so on. We also all come here to learn things we do not know. I
>> do not really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I
>> should vote on whether content is accurate or not? I do not know the
>> physics literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a
>> given source?
>
> You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not
> interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on
> whether this or that study result should be included in an article
> about it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am
> strictly in favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides
> *must* be properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so
> that anyone who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly
> get an overview of what the arguments are.
I agree that in order for a sample of community opinion (on any issue)
to have value, the framework must be appropriately established in
advance. But I'm afraid that a voting process with strict guidelines is
not something that the different sides of most content disputes will be
able to navigate together. While I have grave misgivings about content
arbitration, I'm not convinced that community votes are a better
solution, either.
Whatever the precise details, both parties would have to cooperate fully
with the vote in order to bring it off successfully. But in many
situations, the participants will already have a decent sense of which
position would prevail in a binding vote. This tends to become even
clearer as a dispute moves toward the stage where such a vote might
become plausible. The side that stands to lose will have no incentive to
cooperate in satisfying the requirements for the vote to be binding.
The problem with voting on questions of content is that it forces the
issue. When there is an explicit push for resolution like this, those
who anticipate an unfavorable result will delay, perhaps even actively
obstruct the process. They will object to the vote as premature and
won't put adequate effort into summarizing even their own position. They
may perhaps allow the vote to proceed "under protest", but then decline
to participate, and afterward dismiss the results as illegitimate
because the prerequisites were not satisfied.
--Michael Snow
On Jun 6, 2005, at 12:54 PM, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>>
>> Then those websites and books are pretty good references for their
>> opinions. I don't see a problem here. A flat earth society
>> website is an
>> excellent reference for a description of the views of that society.
>>
>
> But if the article is [[astrophysics]]?
It doesn't matter if the article is [[Strawberry lollipop]]. The Flat
Earth Society website's authority on the opinion, where it takes an
official position, of the Flat Earth Society on strawberry lollipops, the
Michael Jackson trial, the shape of the earth, or whatever, is pretty
solid.
Well, as Gomer Pyle would say:
* "Surprise, surprise, surprise"
Isn't this *precisely* what Larry Sanger was calling for? And wasn't
this the *chief* criticism he made about Wikipedia in his famous screed?
That we need *some* sort of reliable group of experts ("vetted panels of
respected users who have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas" as Mav
put it) to give us a reliable clue as to what is really so.
Okay, maybe I shouldn't be so shrill and I-told-you-so-ish about this;
sorry, I'll get off my high horse now.
Taking the course Mav suggests could either help us a lot or hurt us
terribly. If we choose wise (and unbiased!) panels, we'll be able to add
the adjective "reliable" (or "authoritative") to our main page's slogan.
If we simly hold an election, chances are that voters will (deliberately
or not) choose a panel which MERELY REFLECTS THEIR PREJUDICES AND
BIASES.
It ultimately will come down to a question of:
* Who is worthy of our trust?
* How do we identify and attract such people?
* How can we prove to others that they merit our trust?
This task might be too hard for us, with our current organization. Now
don't get me wrong: I really like the people on the arbcom, and I'm not
wangling for a seat on it. I'm just saying that it's very difficult for
non-experts to judge the qualifications of experts.
To distinguish between:
A. the scrupulously honest and self-sacrificial devotees of truth (of
"what is") who are as M. Scott Peck wrote, "dedicated to reality at all
costs"; and,
B. people who will assert that something is true (1) out of ignorant
error or (2) for an ulterior motive
...to make that distinction is more than we bargained for.
Jimbo and Larry set up the NPOV idea out of what I regard as a kind of
philosophical and practical desperation: I realization that the only way
a really huge wiki could operate successfully was to DUCK all issues of
determining right and wrong, true and false, good and bad - and simply
"describe fairly each point of view". Thus the term Neutral Point Of
View means "not endorsing or rejecting ANY point of view".
It may be that Wikipedia has served its purpose: that it has reached the
end of its tether. If so, we must look to others to build upon its
foundation and continue onward.
Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Mayer [mailto:maveric149@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:42 PM
> To: English Wikipedia
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Strawman attacks on recent proposals
>
>
> --- Robert <rkscience100(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people
> here who
> > unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in original research,
> > write things that are just false and bizarre.
>
> And the ArbCom is already charged with enforcing all
> Wikipedia policies, including those that are about content
> (such as NPOV, NOR, and Verifiability). We have in fact ruled
> in this area several times before but have been usually
> limited to cases that are fairly obvious.
>
> Spotting subtle POV, original research, or fringe ideas
> masquerading as more mainstream than they are takes a fair
> amount of pre-existing knowledge in the relevant subject
> area. This is something that the current ArbCom could never have.
>
> Thus my idea of having vetted panels of respected users who
> have demonstrated knowledge in certain areas that the ArbCom
> could call upon to help it distinguish what is what.
>
> See
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitratio
n/RFC#Alternate_solution_.239_by_mav._Content_subcommittee
-- mav
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sean Barret wrote,
>I am not lying when I say I am worried. I am worried about people who
>want to set up committees to decide what points of view will not be
>allowed to be represented in Wikipedia.
This is indeed a straw-man argument (to give Sean the benefit of the doubt;
if it is not a straw man argument, it is either a deliberate lie, or an
example of un-comprehension). No one -- no one at all -- has said that
they want to set up a committee to decide which points of view will not be
allowed on Wikipedia. On the contrary, Jayguk has suggested a committee
which will enforce NPOV, and Mav's suggested committees will obviously
adhere to our NPOV policy. Sean is clouding the issue by claiming it has
anything to do with NPOV. Or he believes that our NPOV policy means that
anything anyone writes stays, whether it is accurate or properly sourced or
not. If this is what Sean thinks, he is seriously misunderstanding or
deliberately misrepresenting our NPOV policy and I suggest he take the time
to read it.
Of course, misunderstanding or misrepresentation is something Sean is
well-practiced at. In reply to an earlier e-mail of mine, he wrote, "Silly
statements that are so very hard to spot that they cannot be rebutted and
can only be corrected by rendering them unexpressible are not
silly." Again no one -- no one at all -- has ever said that false
statements can be corrected "only" by rendering them "unexpressible," nor
have I or anyone else ever even suggested that content should be rendered
unexpressible. This is a matter of style, not content. Falsehoods can be
rendered unexpressible, truths or facts can be rendered lucid, even
eloquent. The proposals circulating have nothing to do with style, only
with content -- which is what an encyclopedia is all about.
People can "express" their personal views on talk-pages. But Sean seems to
think that Wikipedia is a chat-room, not an encyclopedia. In an
encyclopedia, verifiable and accurate (yes, presented in an NPOV way, as
everyone agrees) really are important.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701
Hello!
Listen, I have two suggestions --
1 - make a 'printer friendly' version of articles, so one does not have to cut and past into a word file and then erase the dozens of 'hyper links' !
2 - have your email address in plain site! It took me a long time to find this address!
thank you
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Sean writes:
> I am very worried that we are seriously discussing the
> formation of a committee empowered to prohibit unpopular
> content from Wikipedia and to ban those that feel that it
> is important to record it.
Isn't that a deliberate lie? What facts (written in NPOV
format) did Larry Sanger try to censor? What facts
(written in NPOV format) did Steve Rubenstein try to
censor? NONE.
I strongly object to this strawman attack - which borders
on an ad homenim attack - on the discussion of improving
Wikipedia.
Folks, we still have a major problem. There are many people
here who unfortunately refuse to cite sources, engage in
original research, write things that are just false and
bizarre.
For years many of our best contributors have been driven
away due to these problems, and the Wikipedia leadership
has done little to address the core problem: While we
enforce rules about "playing nice", virtually no one
attempts to seriously enforce our rules and policies on
citing sources, verifiability, and just plain making sure
that our articles do not contain flat-out bullshit.
There are many people who are exceptions to this, of
course, like Steve R. and JayJG. For them, following
Wikipedia policy such as citing sources, verifiability, and
removing original content are actually important, and not
just lip-service. However people like them are working on
an individual basis. That just doesn't cut it for an
encyclopedia of tens of thousands of articles!
For some time Steve Rubenstein and a few others have
pointed out this flaw, and have made the quite reasonable
suggestion that we have some sort of ArbCom to deal with
content disputes. (Remember, the entire point of this
project is to create reliable encyclopedia content.
Everything else is an aside.)
Yet at every turn people who ask for such minor and
obviously useful control mechanisms are attacked with
strawman criticisms, falsely accused of censorship, and are
generally treated with disdain. Is it any wonder that
Wikipedia still has a relatively poor reputation among many
college, university and high school teachers?
Until we take our primary goal seriously - dealing with
content problems - Wikipedia will remain at beast a
curiosity, an "encyclopedia" filled with questionable
content.
What's most shocking about this is that the problems we
face are so easily solvable (for instance, set up volunteer
ArbComs for article content) but every proposal is attacked
in heated and misleading ways.
Robert (RK)
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/mobile.html
Rebecca wrote:
>On 6/6/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely
>>to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning
>>and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require
>>watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a
>>more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting
>>for cases to come to them.
>>
>>
>Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system
>where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
>
>
The simplest thing that comes to mind is to put the Mediation Committee
in charge of the Requests for comments page. I think this would, if we
can get enough mediators with enough energy, help address structural
issues with both processes.
There are two major complaints made about RfC. One is that the page is
poorly maintained and regularly swells to an unwieldy size. The other is
that it's not terribly effective, because many requests do not succeed
in drawing much comment from people outside the dispute. Each of these
problems also tends to exacerbate the other.
If, to make mediation workable, we want it to happen earlier in the
dispute resolution process, we need something that will signal the
existence of a dispute to the mediators. Right now, what signal do we
have available? That's right, RfC, which is itself in need of attention
from mediator-types.
In particular, it would be great to have lots of mediators working to
solve the article content disputes on RfC. With more effort along these
lines, we might see fewer content-related issues going to arbitration,
and less pressure to come up with some kind of separate content
arbitration. Or, if content arbitration does indeed prove necessary,
their experience might help us know how to come up with better solutions
when we get there.
--Michael Snow