[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Wed Jun 8 02:58:06 UTC 2005

Erik Moeller wrote:

> Steven-
>
>> I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote.  We all 
>> come to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people 
>> know a lot about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, 
>> and so on.  We also all come here to learn things we do not know.  I 
>> do not really understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I 
>> should vote on whether content is accurate or not?  I do not know the 
>> physics literature -- you really think I can vote on the repute of a 
>> given source?
>
> You appear to be operating under the assumption that someone not 
> interested the least in quantum physics would participate in a vote on 
> whether this or that study result should be included in an article 
> about it. This does not seem very likely to me. Moreover, I am 
> strictly in favor of a process whereby all arguments from all sides 
> *must* be properly summarized before a binding vote can take place, so 
> that anyone who has an interest and a basic understanding can quickly 
> get an overview of what the arguments are.

I agree that in order for a sample of community opinion (on any issue) 
to have value, the framework must be appropriately established in 
advance. But I'm afraid that a voting process with strict guidelines is 
not something that the different sides of most content disputes will be 
able to navigate together. While I have grave misgivings about content 
arbitration, I'm not convinced that community votes are a better 
solution, either.

Whatever the precise details, both parties would have to cooperate fully 
with the vote in order to bring it off successfully. But in many 
situations, the participants will already have a decent sense of which 
position would prevail in a binding vote. This tends to become even 
clearer as a dispute moves toward the stage where such a vote might 
become plausible. The side that stands to lose will have no incentive to 
cooperate in satisfying the requirements for the vote to be binding.

The problem with voting on questions of content is that it forces the 
issue. When there is an explicit push for resolution like this, those 
who anticipate an unfavorable result will delay, perhaps even actively 
obstruct the process. They will object to the vote as premature and 
won't put adequate effort into summarizing even their own position. They 
may perhaps allow the vote to proceed "under protest", but then decline 
to participate, and afterward dismiss the results as illegitimate 
because the prerequisites were not satisfied.

--Michael Snow