[WikiEN-l] Rules, expertise, and encyclopedic standards

Sun Mar 6 22:06:36 UTC 2005

Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net>

>A natural consequence of allowing the Arbitration Committee seriously
>consider contents would be ArbCom elections based on such issues as
>where one stands in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

This is one way to construe 172's suggestions -- but it is not the only 
way.  I certainly do not believe that the solution to conflicts over 
content can come down to "you are right, you are wrong."  Surely there are 
other ways.  here is one: a committee that would specialize in enforcing 
policies concerning content, e.g. NPOV, No original research (which is not, 
as Charles Matthews suggested, subordinate to NPOV, or it shouldn't 
be.  They are equally important; neither one trumps the other).

This is clearly different from ArbCom which as members of ArbCom have made 
abundantly clear deals only with conflicts between two or more users, and 
matters of behavior, not content.  Although two users can and often do come 
into conflict over NPOV or NOR, this is categorically different from the 
kinds of conflicts ArbCom deals with.  ArbCom deals with violations of 
certain policies (specifically behavioral) caused by a conflict between 
users.  What I and I think 172 and SlimVirgin are talking about is 
conflicts between users caused by violations of other policies (concerning 
content).

Obviously in order to intervene in a conflict over NPOV or No original 
research a committee would have to be very attentive to content.  But I am 
sure that no matter what one's beliefs about Jesus, Zionism, or fascism, 
experienced editors can reach an agreement over what does or doesn't 
constitute NPOV or original research.

This might not resolve all of the issues 172 and SlimVirgin raise, but I 
think it would go far to address some of them.

Steve

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