[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Wed Jun 8 08:06:43 UTC 2005

--- Erik Moeller <erik_moeller at gmx.de> wrote:
> ... However, I believe that you, Mark and other 
> arbitrators are examining the problem *only* from your point of view as 
> arbitrators. This is an unnecessary limitation of perspective. I think 
> there are community-based approaches that are not as susceptible to 
> error and corruption and that therefore should be preferred.

The possibility of error and corruption always exists whenever you include
humans in a process. But increasing the number of vetted people involved will
tend to decrease this possibility, no? The ArbCom already hears cases that
involve violations of our content-related policies. Making it easier for them
to cut through subtle POV and original research will be make that body work
more effectively in making sure our content-related polices are followed. 

I don't feel that I have proposed anything that would increase the possibility
of corruption and error. In fact, I feel I have made a proposal that would
decrease this possibility for the current ArbCom. Other approaches can and
should also be explored, but I do think what I've proposed can be part of the
solution. 

> Now that you have so cogently pointed out the problem -- it's possible 
> to wage "wars of attrition" over articles, and the person first to 
> explode or give up is likely to lose -- 

Yep - this is exactly the problem. Bad behavior is bad no matter how factually
correct and content policy-adhering your edits are and there should be
consequences for that. *But* being factually correct and more closely adhering
to our content policies should mitigate any remedy against a user while 
persistently not doing that should multiply any remedy against another user. 

If we are serious about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia first and a wiki
community second, then we must take some stance similar to that. Yet, factually
correctness and how closely something follows our content policies  is not
something the ArbCom by itself is competent to determine except in the most
obvious of cases (which are much fewer and further between now). Thus my idea
of having various bodies we could consult on content-related matters. 

> I would like us to look together 
> for a solution that is compatible with our ideals and dreams of 
> openness and cooperation in good faith, rather than one that takes us 
> down the road of credentialism and hierarchy.  

I fail to see how having a consultive body to the ArbCom would do that. They
would not have any power of their own and there will be checks and balances.
I'd just like to be able to ask groups of respected and vetted users who have
demonstrated some competence in certain areas questions from time to time as
needed. 

-- mav

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 