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

Mon Mar 7 19:40:59 UTC 2005

Delerium wrote,

>The current hope is that the community can deal with this, if people who
>behave badly are taken out of the system.  That is, the community will
>spot and remove original research, and if someone keeps readding it
>despite a consensus that it should be removed, the person will
>eventually be banned.

I understand this.  And, as I hope I have made very clear, I do believe 
that the unregulated community must and can be the first, and major, way of 
dealing with such problems.

Two big buts (and, as we all know, everyone has big buts):

First, many other people have pointed out that the way that the community 
deals with such issues often escalates to a point where vigilant members of 
the community violate personal behavior rules in the process of trying to 
control an editor who is damaging the content of an article.  I am not 
excusing violation of personal behavior rules, I am just making what I 
think is a factual observation.  Since the only official dispute-resolution 
mechanism we currently have is concerned exclusively with behavioral 
violations, and not content, vigilant members of the community are punished 
along with those damaging content.  As many have pointed out, the 3RR 
actually favors editors who damage content, against vigilant members.  I am 
NOT saying that the ArbCom should stop dealing with violations of behavior 
policies.  I Am saying that this situation calls for a second 
mechanism.  (I share Mav's concern about extending the ArbCom's powers -- I 
think that such a second mechanism should involve a second committee.

Second, let's remember that there was a time when we similarly expected the 
"community" to deal with all problems, including personal conflicts 
involving violations of behavioral policies.  Mediation and ArbCom 
developed as we realized that the anarchic community processes simply were 
not sufficient.  I think it is clear now that anarchic community processes 
are not always sufficient to deal with violations of content policies.

Believe me, I sometimes miss the days when there was no formal mechanism 
for dealing with problems, and editors just had to argue it out -- even 
vituperatively! -- until someone gave up.  This is why I still think that 
the community should try to resolve all disputes, concerning content and 
behavioral policies.  But I understand the need for the ArbCom -- as 
Wikipedia grows, and becomes even more heterogeneous, I don't see an 
alternative.  But similarly, as Wikipedia grows, I think we now need a 
second committee.  Two committees to handle different kinds of disputes may 
seem like a lot compared to the old days.  But really, I don't think two 
committees is too much.

>I'd be open to a committee policing for original research at some point,
>if that turns out to be necessary.  Policing for NPOV is a lot more
>complicated.

As long as it is seen as a dispute resolving mechanism, rather than as 
police, I think it would work for both (indeed, one of the problems with 
the ArbCom right now is that it is both dispute-resolving, and 
police.  Maybe we need both functions, but they call for different 
mechanisms -- a dispute-resolution process does require, as Fred has 
insisted, that the committee look at the behavior of "both" parties.  But 
this is possible only because there are two or more parties.  I think the 
policing function requires a committee that can talk to users who violate 
policies even when no one has filed a formal complaint).

Steve

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