How can we prevent the advocate from knowing which side contained the donor?
Do we really want people to be able to pay to get an "express service"
in the dispute resolution process?
On 4/9/06, Ian Tresman <it(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
My earlier post on policy clarification leads me to
suggest a good
way to raise a continuous stream of money.
If I had the option, I would stump up a $50 donation in an instant,
to acquire an "advocate" to ensure that policy is followed, while I
attempted to edit an article "by the rules". The advocate would NOT
take the side of the donor.
At the moment, administrators can quickly assess contraventions of
3RR (three revert rule) and vandalism. Other issues on policy are
typically judged by consensus which depends on the knowledge and
experience of editors on policy. There is often a conflict of
interest, and often poor understanding of policy.
I envisage policy advocates, who would initially take a short online
test to assess their competence, and may then be called upon to
uphold policy, either on a question by question basis, or on an
article by article basis.
If there are only a limited number of such advocates, their services
could be acquired by bidding.
At no time will an advocate take sides, and nor is an advocate
guaranteed to resolve a dispute. But in those cases where they can, I
think their services would be invaluable.