[WikiEN-l] mediation

Sat Jan 17 20:16:00 UTC 2004

Dear all

I hope I did not overstep because I was bold. I had
time last night :-)

I edited/created the articles having the do with
mediation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation

Here is how I perceive things

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3AMediation_Committee
*list all the current mediators, and give means to
contact them (among user talk page, email, irc, icq,
phone...)
*explanation of what a mediator is (duties and rights
to respect within that role) and how it differs from
an arbitrator
* how the commitee works as an entity : private
mailing list, report from a mediator to the others,
advices given within the group, external counsellor
(alex756)
*how to be a mediator yourself
*requests to be appointed
*mention of availability among the current mediators

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_mediation
*short point list of the most important points about
mediation
- what is and what is not mediation
- which type of conflicts it may handle
- rights and duties of those asking mediation
(confidentiality…)
- how and when to request mediation
- the basic of the procedure
- what will happen if that fails…
(I expect all this to remain short and very explicit)
*current cases in mediation and state of each case
*pending requests

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3Amediation
A fairly detailed page on what mediation is or should
be
With
*description of what mediation is "in the real world"
*application to wikipedia case

Currently, the first part comes mostly from our
article on mediation, and from what was previously
written on the matter in several places
The second part (if I remember well) mostly from Jussy
work on meta

I think this article should mostly be seen as a
ressource for the mediators (for any mediator,
including those out of the commitee)
* ideas for how to face the possibly very heated
editors at the beginning of the process, and cool down
things
* suggestions for various steps (I believe each case
is particular, but a bit of structure is often
beneficial)
* perhaps some links to ressources about fallacies ?
* previous cases ?
* external links with ressources about mediation ?
* ?

-------

I would like to mention two points I think are
important

References :
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediation_oversight_procedure

Jussi suggested on meta the use of a silent observer,
whom role would be to monitor the mediation session.

I disagree with this as a requirement (I however think
it is potentially useful, and potentially a learning
tool as well). But it complicates a process which
should stay fluid. By default, it does not trust the
process and the people involved. And finally, at any
point in the process, any one is free (and big enough)
to say there is a problem, and mediation can't proceed
properly in the given situation.
I think this idea should be discussed more in any
cases.

The second point is about the type of conflict which
could be fixed.
Jussi, you wrote " The main purpose of Wikipedia
mediation framework is to provide a means to resolve
disputes over articles when the standard consensus
editing model is not working."

Well….In the two years  on Wikipedia, I have seen
enough to say many disputes are not only content
(article) dispute, disagreements over the title of the
article, an image to insert here rather than there,
the undeletion of a page, a consensus over a rule, the
label of a picture, the insertion over an opinion,
whatever.

We all have our bad days, when we are a bit stubborn,
jump on the first motive to flame someone, or answer
to the first provocation, misunderstand a statement.

If we care about the community, or if we care about
the other editor, chance is we get over the conflict
alone. More or less easily. But sometimes not.
Sometimes the group has to come to help; sometimes we
need someone to come help us regain our wits.

Sometimes these conflicts will escalate pretty badly,
with screams to unsysop people, or ban them, threats,
community name calling, to the point not only the
people directly involved, but the whole community will
suffer of it.

It might express itself upon articles. Or not. The
articles themselves are sometimes the origin of a
conflict, sometimes they are just the reflect, the
mirror of an inner conflict between 2 people, or a
core disagreement between an editor and the community.

When 2 people flame themselves, every couple of weeks,
or spread the flame all over wikipedia, chance is the
conflict to solve is not just over an article.

Fixing the article dispute will fix the article, but
will not uncover the root of the personal conflict.
But it will certainly provide a lot of work to the
mediator weeks after weeks.
Most conflicts are people conflicts.

These cases, conflict over content, or conflict
between personnalities, or conflicts over core
principles, need to be fixed. Not article only.
Because all impact on community health, discourage
people to participate, to collaborate.
It is not good that a personal conflict is confused
with a conflict over content. When someone comes to
discuss a conflict between persons, and he is answered
over article content issues, it is just *missing the
point*. Badly.

Human capital is essential. Without the people, there
is no community building. Without community, there is
no project building. Without project, there is no
encyclopedia.

In short (do I ever succeed to do that ?), mediation
can make wonders over article conflicts. But it should
help conflicts user/user and user/community as well.
And if it does not help, that will be for the
arbitration team to cut things short. Ie, to ban the
one not respecting the core principles. Or to ban the
asocial.

--------

Just my opinions…I hope some will comment on the
relevant pages :-)

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus