On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 20:44:02 +0200
"Jean-Christophe Chazalette"
<jean-christophe.chazalette(a)laposte.net> wrote:
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
although i am new to the site and cnnot call myself a
wikipedian yet i agree with
what you say and think it is a
very good idea.all the luck.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
______________________________________________________________
http://www.webmail.co.za the South African FREE email service