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

Tue Mar 8 19:04:05 UTC 2005

Abe Sokolov wrote:

>>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.

I don't think this is the time to question the ArbCom's credibility.  I 
understand that this is an issue for several editors, and that along with 
this discussion over content disputes, there is another discussion over the 
fairness of the ArbCom.  But I think it is important to keep these two 
discussions separate.

My position is this: even if the ArbCom functions flawlessly, I would still 
argue for a second committee to handle conflicts over content.  My main 
reason is that no committee should have too much power.  This is a 
structural issue -- I am not questioning the integrity of the members of 
the ArbCom, I just believe that if we are going to institutionalize certain 
powers in this largely anarchic community, then a separation of powers is a 
good idea.  This is my main reason, but I do agree with 172 that the kind 
of judgement called for in a committee dealing with content issues is 
different from that called for in a committee dealing with behavioral 
issues.  Each committee might appeal to different editors who might serve 
as members; the learning curve would be different, and so on.

I respect Mav's opinion and with the exception of this one issue agree with 
everything he has written on this topic.

Steve

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