[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Fri Oct 3 03:53:04 UTC 2003

If it is blatent JoeM-style POV that is the problem, there is really no need
for arbitration. However in cases like the "Japanese Pornograpy" article,
then arbitration is nessesary since not everyone may think that the article
is actually POV.

If we do decide to do this, there should be a "fast track" process that
would be more efficient to go by when we are dealing with people like JoeM

-Vancouverguy

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex R." <alex756 at nyc.rr.com>
To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 8:42 PM
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "blairr" <blairr at telus.net>
> To: "English Wikipedia" <wikien-l at Wikipedia.org>
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 11:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"
>
>
> > That's good for vandals, but what about problem users.
> > For things like strange edits (eg Nuuk/Godthab), and users that have
made
> > POV changes, as well as other things.
> >
> > I like the idea of mediation by a select group of users, as well as
> > empowering these users, if the user-in-question does not change their
> > behavior, to orchestrate bans.
> >
> > - Vancouverguy
>
> I would keep the mediators and arbitrators two distinct
> groups. If you go in front of a mediator and know they
> have been or might be an arbitrator then you may not
> consider them your friend.
>
> Mediation and arbitration are two very different processes.
> Mediation is trying to get people to talk, communicate
> and come to some kind of compromise. Mediators allow
> people to take any position they want and then they try
> to have the parties see the position of the other side to
> appreciate it and see if there is any merit in the other side's
> POV. It is really a lot like the NPOV process we encourage
> here.
>
> An arbitratror (from ancient Roman origins) is a neutral decision
> maker who looks at the differentPOVs and tries to find the
> proper interpretation of the parties differing POVs to find
> the controlling opnion in terms of rules and events and
> the interpretation of those rules in relation to the events.
> While the arbitrator (or arbitration committee) must only
> come to one opinion it may not even be the opinions of
> the parties, they may decide on a third opinion. Also the
> parties going into arbitration basically agree that whatever
> decision the arbitrator comes to will be binding on both
> of them. Thus they are giving up their particular position
> in an appeal to the impartiality of the arbitration process.
>
> You can't talk to an arbitrator the way you talk to a mediator.
>  Also the arbitration process is open to some scrutiny
> (though it may not be public as in a court because it is done
> by the consent of the parties not through the coersion of
>  the state). Mediation cannot really work unless it is
> confidential and the parties do not fear a penalty for
> somehow failing in the mediation process.
>
> Sorry for goiing on but these are two incredibly complex
> processes that have very long histories and many
> different types of manifestation in the behavior of
> groups of people so it is very difficult to take all the
> knowledge I have about these two processes and
> condence them down into layperson nutshells. Please
> excuse my verbosity!
>
> Alex756
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l