[WikiEN-l] Looking at the real world

Sat Sep 3 17:10:24 UTC 2005

--- "James D. Forrester" <james at jdforrester.org>
wrote:

> BTW, I'm troubled by your suggestion that we are
> harsh. This suggests,
> amongst other points, two things: firstly, that
> we're here to meet out
> justice, and secondly that we're here to do so
> fairly. Neither of these
> are true. The Committee is charged with maintaining
> the project and
> protecting it from disruption with the means at its
> disposal. We are
> not, have never been, and will never be here to
> punish people for things
>  they do on the wiki. Instead, we look at things
> from the perspective of
> what is best for the project.

Well, this is all nice and good, but the "whatever's
best for the project" angle doesnt preclude the basic
notion that Arbcom is a service which implies a due
process, and that both the review and process models
are best served if they have at least some resemblance
to concepts of justice or fairness (at least
remotely). 

The Arbcom was formed not to simply be an extension of
rule-by-decree, but as an institution of review by
peers for peers. The monarchial model is a double
edged sword: fast executive power are offset by an
excessive burden of duty-and-blame, which in the end
winds up equating to sluggish non-responsiveness to
bottom-up community needs. BTW, I find it troubling
that you would take a criticism suggesting harshness
as "troubling." Can't take a criticism? 

I appreciate the care put into your response (not a
screed at all) but IMHO, saying a judgement cant
possibly be "harsh" because the process 'isnt based on
fairness at all to begin with,' is a bit
counterintelligent. Even war criminals claim they were
'just doing their job.' Not that this is the same
thing at all, but that seems to be the basic logic
involved.

SV
"He thinks the carpet-pissers did it?" 

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 