[WikiEN-l]/[[DNA]]/Lir/and a PS on Expert Determination (crossposting to the legal list)

Thu Jan 8 11:01:28 UTC 2004

NOTE: I AM CROSSPOSTING THIS TO THE WIKILEGAL LIST,
SO PLEASE EDIT THE LISTS LINE TO THE APPROPRIATE
RECIPIENTS.

On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 10:56, A [name omitted for privacy reasons] wrote:

<<I am requesting arbitration at [[DNA]]. I have
attempted to submit that DNA is a form of [[nucleic
acid]]. [[User:Peak]] (working in conjunction with an
anon IP) has made it clear to me that he thinks I am a
vandal (thus, mediation is not appropriate; since,
discussion is impossible).>>

    Respectfully, I think in this situation, discussion is imperative.

    By speech and action, you should make it clear that Peak and his 
    (putative) anonymous friend are incorrect in their characterisation
    of you.

    (more about the possible role of mediation below)

<<I request that the arbitration committee determine
whether, or not, DNA is a nucleic acid.>>

    It is unclear whether we are going to allow either the mediation
    or the arbitration process stray into making determinations on 
    questions of fact (personally I think it would be a serious
    over-reach of authority and compounding of "hats" which might
    cause severe difficulties to the credibility of either process).

    If that is decided to be outside our remit, perhaps the best you 
    could hope for is that a mediator would try to get Peek and/or
    the anonymous editor to confront your views, and try to help
    all parties to find some useful mode to discuss the matter 
    between each other, either within the mediation process or 
    subsequent to it, without taking a position in any way, other 
    than to the effect that discussion should take place and
    perhaps suggesting intermediary discussion points which might help
    to chart where the heart of the disagreement lies.

    Respectfully,

        Jussi-Ville Heiskanen (aka Cimon Avaro),
        MEMBER OF THE MEDIATION COMMITTEE

P.S. I hate to keep on harping on this matter, but there is a
possibility that a method
for resolving questions of fact may be needed down the line. The ideal
method for
this is neither arbitration nor mediation, but rather "expert
determination". This has
already been excercised informally in the Florentin Smarandache and
Neutrosophy
case, when a professor from outside Wikipedia was "enticed" to "fix" the
problem.

Once we get more and more public exposure, it may well turn out that on
specific
tightly defined questions of fact, we may be able to get even notable
experts to
accept commissions to sort things out, in a context of both/all sides of
the 
conflict accepting beforehand the expert enlisted makes the final call.
There are
attendant possibilities here, for generating publicity for both
Wikipedia and/or the
expert who accepts the commission (and we may even get a new convert
from
the highest reaches of the particular field :-).

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20040108/13b6127c/attachment.htm 