Kate and Steve,
IMO, editor behavior or a poor understanding of policy/guidelines is the
underlying problem in most *intense content disputes*. Editors want to
put the TRUTH in articles instead of encyclopedic, verifiable,
information from reliable sources. Having experienced editors step in
and bring the discussion back to following policy/guidelines works the
majority of the time. Minor differences of opinion can be solved by
third opinions, etc.
In both cases, the main problem is how to get more editors to look at
disputed articles. Most editors don't find their way to Rfc on a regular
basis, but I don't think that means that they don't care or want to get
involved. Could Signpost be used to list new Rfc? Or a separate
publication that is delivered to subscribers on a weekly basis? Maybe
involvement in Rfc or informally mediating editing disputes could be
introduced as one evaluating criteria for promotion to administrator. As
an experiment I might start mentioning it on RFAs.
Sydney aka FloNight
Katefan0 wrote:
I'm not sure that I would support anything that
sounds as binding as an
"article arbitration committee," but I have for a long time felt that it
would be wise to establish a cadre of admins that form an "NPOV brigade" who
could be called upon to look at and weigh in on content disputes as a means
of breaking a stalemate. It's definitely a need on Wikipedia that isn't
being filled, as is evidenced by the amount of content RFArs getting filed
lately. RFC rarely works, but only because it doesn't generate enough
interest, IMO.
k
On 4/6/06, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
> ...a while back at the pump that the article branch of requests for
> comment wasn't serving it's purpose anymore, and that it should get
> moved to the pump as [[Village pump (article)]]. Sadly, and a little
> ironically, I got no discussion at the pump, and I'm starting to wonder
> if the community is so big it is beginning to fracture. There needs to
> be a high profile way of grabbing editor attention and getting a
> reflective consensus on issues. I'm starting to agree with the idea of
> a parliament or maybe an article arbitration commitee. Any thoughts?
>
> Steve block