From: wikien-l-bounces(a)Wikipedia.org
[mailto:wikien-l-bounces@Wikipedia.org] On Behalf Of Poor, Edmund W
Sent: Tuesday, 29 November 2005 02:45
To: English Wikipedia
Subject: RE: [WikiEN-l] extremely weak dispute resolution mechanisms
> This can also be done by a single admin,
e.g. this is mostly what
> Linuxbeak is applying to his dear little charges - beat
them around
> the head with a cluebat until they realise
he means it,
then gently
> suggest they behave with suggestions of how
to. It's
sometimes more
> work than it seems like it should be, but
can work if the
idjit is
cluifiable at all.
Don't be too hard on yourself, David.
Peter (Skyring)
Our whole process of "dispute resolution" needs an overhaul.
It's slipped down to relativism:
We are viewing each dispute in a moral vacuum, with both
parties considered to have equal standing. This can never work.
IF one party is strongly upholding our civility or accuracy
standards (or making a plea for Neutrality on a Controversial
Topic), while the other insists on being uncivil, adding
inaccurate information, or using the article to push their
point of view (POV)
THEN
* it's not a matter of two people "disputing"
* it's a matter of one party being "right" and the other
party being "wrong"
Let's change our procedures so that there's a way to enforce
civility and accuracy as key values of our community - and
stamp out bias too!
I'm totally in favour of this.
The point I was making in what may have been too subtle a fashion, is that
far too often disputes are concluded in a rankist fashion. Being a WP editor
for years doesn't make someone right (or wrong, for that matter), but it
certainly allows them to push their opinion further.
Peter (Skyring)