[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Thu Jun 9 10:41:05 UTC 2005

On 6/9/05, michaelturley at myway.com <michaelturley at myway.com> wrote:
> 
> I see absolutely no need to arbitrate, mediate, or otherwise rule on appropriate content.
> 
> Attempting to do so is like trying to nail warm Jell-O to the wall.  Wikipedia articles are fluid and constantly changing.  Any version of an editorial board could only fix an article's state at one specific point in time, and the "approved" version would probably be long out of date by the time the ruling was formulated and agreed upon.
> 
> The only real solutions are:
> 1. to recruit more intelligent, reasonable editors by offering a welcoming, respectful community atmosphere,
> 2. to cite our sources more thoroughly and properly, and let the reader decide their individual credibility
> 3. to recruit as many editors as possible to make use of the watchlist feature for each contended article
> 4. to use NPOV tags and their derivatives to warn readers of disagreements over content.
> 
> Our mistakes at this time may be not giving the readers a full sense of just how much disputed Wikipedia articles can change over short time periods, and not making clear enough just what NPOV means.
> 
> Perhaps we need a stronger, more explicit NPOV tag, or variants thereof, for some articles.  We could also make it more clear that our readers can browse the history of any article to gain insight by reviewing its creation process.  We can also slow the process of the change even more, to encourage a more thoughtful process, like was done with the introduction of the 3 revert rule, and like is done every day with temporary edit locks.
> 
> But attempting to vet content through a review board of any kind is folly for a wiki encyclopedia.  The active community IS the review board on a wiki.
> 
> The only oversight that is proper is that which is necessary to ensure that everyone participates fairly and generally on equal terms according to behavior rules.
> 
> Michael Turley
> User:Unfocused

With all respect, I think you're missing the point. Firstly, I don't
believe anyone - in all the different proposals - has endorsed any
form of committee that would endorse a particular revision of an
article, making that point entirely redundant. But I also think this
debate over a review committee is beside the issue.

The problem is that we have a whole bunch of cases that are currently
being heard by the arbitration committee - such as the climate change
dispute, which *do* need to be dealt with, but why I - and others -
believe shouldn't be dealt with by a system of paroles, bans,
limitations and punishment. What Unfocused suggests is effectively
just the status quo - which, in my book, is going to see good editors
leave because we end up having to limit their editing rights instead
of solving the blasted dispute, once it has gone on for long enough.

I'm *not* necessarily in favour of any form of content committee - in
fact, I think it's probably the wrong way to go about it - partly for
the reasons Unfocused mentions. There *are* alternatives, however -
and I urge those reading to help us out in determining how we might
get around this one. Attacking a system that nobody's suggested and
nobody wants really doesn't help anyone much.

-- ambi