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

Tue Mar 8 19:41:43 UTC 2005

--- "steven l. rubenstein" <rubenste at ohiou.edu> wrote:
> 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.

Violation of our content guidelines and policies are also behavioral issues
concerning users. That is the type of thing that the ArbCom can and *is*
already taking care of. We just have been focusing on violations of
non-content-related policies and guidelines for most of the committee's
existence since those issues are easier to deal with. That is changing due to
the increased amount of skill and confidence we have in dealing with issues in
general. 

It's not a matter of power, it is a matter of needless duplication. Most cases
involve some accusation of breaking content guidelines. It would be absurd to
put a person through the current ArbCom for one set of offences, and through
this proposed committee for another. 

-- mav

__________________________________ 
Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday! 
Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the Web 
http://birthday.yahoo.com/netrospective/