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

Mon Mar 7 23:13:37 UTC 2005

Daniel Mayer maveric149 at yahoo.com wrote:

"There is no need for a new committee. The existing ArbCom just needs to be 
more
aggressive at enforcing content policies and guidelines. We did not tackle
these issues at first due to the fact that we did not have clear community
support and many feared giving us that power. The mood now has changed and I
think the community has a great deal more trust in the ArbCom and the ArbCom
itself is better-prepared to deal with this type of issue."

It would be great if the arbcom would become more aggressive at enforcing 
content policies and guidelines. However, there is no evidence that it has 
the capacity to give equal weight to content and behavioral policies, 
especially considering the slow (but at least increasingly rapid) pace at 
which it still handles cases on behavior-- its traditional sphere. A second 
committee would mean more capacity and more expertise to handle the policies 
that always been difficult for the arbcom to address (No original research, 
Cite sources, NPOV, Verifiability, et. al.).

Aside from the issue of capacity, there's also the matter of credibility, 
particularly public credibility. Even if the Wikipedia community has more 
trust in the arbcom now, we cannot infer based on that observation that 
Wikipedia readers or the public will hold it in any high esteem. Frankly, 
many people (to say the least) would be highly skeptical of an encyclopedia 
whose editorial concerns are officially handled by teenagers. (This isn't 
calling into question the abilities of the teenage arbom members; IMO at 
least two of them have more sense in them than many of the older members put 
together.) Even if public perception is unfounded, Wikipedia still cannot 
afford to disregard it. After all, it matters insofar as our work having any 
meaning. If Wikipedia editors are the only people taking Wikipedia articles 
and processes seriously, then we've all been wasting our time.

A second arbitration mechanism would not threaten the influence of a single 
editor. It would only serve to bolster public faith in Wikipedia content 
among those skeptical of the project due to the present lack of a 
professionalized system of editorial review, giving more meaning to the work 
of all involved in the project. In the end, everyone involved in Wikipedia 
would have more real influence. By boosting capacity, Wikipedia governance 
would also be more responsive and efficient when it comes to dealing with 
the interests of serious editors.

-172

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/