[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Committee Seeking Comment

Sun Jun 5 18:56:37 UTC 2005

Mav wrote,

>Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the
>community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the
>ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority.
>Nor is such a small body of people competent in the number of areas of
>knowledge needed to make this workable. I, for example, know very little 
>about
>advanced mathematics so I would be unable to judge a content dispute in that
>area without spending a very, very long time on research.

I agree completely

> > And if ArbCom will not or cannot handle content-based disputes, we need to
> > develop another committee or mechanism.
>This is not an either/or situation. My plan is for the ArbCom to consult
>various content specialist subcommittees when content issues arise.
>See
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC#Alternate_solution_.238_by_mav._Content_subcommittee
>
>Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree about babies and bathwater.  I also like Mav's proposal.  And I 
like Jguks.  I see them as complementary -- Jguk's focusing on enforcing 
existing policies that are specifically content-related (NPOV, NOR, Cite 
Sources, Verifiability) and Mav's focusing on ensuring the high quality of 
our articles, in general.  Right now it would probably be too unwieldy to 
enact both proposals, but I bet that as this community grows larger (say, 
in a year, possibly two) both proposals, with very clearly defined briefs, 
would be useful and practical.

Steve

Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701