Re: [WikiEN-l] Looking at the real world

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 steve v wrote: I would disagree. If what we do is fair and just, then that is not our intent, merely a happy by-product. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and not a bureaucracy, and the Committee serves to upload neither potential set-up, nor any other community model. There is a massive range of options to go through in the dispute resolution processes before that of Arbitration is reached, all of which in their own ways are fair and just (and, in most cases, disproportionately, but not inappropriately, unfair, being weighted towards the wronger and against the wronged, as it were); by the time one is in Arbitration, the application of fairness and justice has seemed to have been unproductive. On the other hand, we seek as much information as possible from all sides when evaluating cases. This is fair and just and a form of due process, if you will (for example, we have suspended cases temporarily whilst participants are unable to continue to edit for a short period due to being ill or away), but it is done not for their own sake but so that we can reach the most accurate decision possible. The distinction may only be theoretical, but I feel that it is important (and, as these principles are only there to act as aides to the process, they can and are by-passed when we feel that they are being "gamed"). It was? This is news to me, and, well, given that I helped form it... We already have "an institution of review by peers for peers", except we generally just call it the "community". The reason why the entire dispute resolution process has grown up over the past two or three years is that the community wishes things, when they get out of hand, to be handled in a more formal way. Indeed. This is why we're forever eager to hear complaints, suggestions, and cases. We on the Committee are, I think, all aware of the burden of duty on our shoulders, and would hope that others would guide us onto the path of the straight and narrow, e'er we err. Nonsense, I repeatedly emplore people to criticise us so that we can learn from our mistakes and serve our function more suitably. What I found "troubling" was that your comments belied a failure of communication as to what the Committee's job is, and instead suggested your ascribing to us a court-like system of "due process" and "justice" and "fairness" (to quote from your words, above). This just simply isn't true, and it's not in anyone's interest for people to be mis-informed, lest they indeed become dis-informed and act in ways that not only isn't in the project's and the community's interest, but not in theirs. Thank you. :-) I hope that this follow-up has clearly put across the point that this illogical step is not one that I have taken here. :-) Yours sincerely, - -- James D. Forrester Wikimedia : [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]] E-Mail : james(a)jdforrester.org IM (MSN) : jamesdforrester(a)hotmail.com