[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Sun Oct 5 07:49:18 UTC 2003

Alex R. wrote:

>From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at joey.bomis.com>
>
>>With arbitration, where actual votes on judicial outcomes will be
>>likely, is strikes me that 'en banc' hearings are going to be best at
>>first, with '3 judge panels' being appointed later on if the caseload
>>actually demands it.
>>
>
>My only concern is that if one party to arbitation has taken away
>the right to chose an arbitrator this is seen as undue influence or
>duress. If they have a choice amongst qualified arbitrators and
>the arbitrators are of differing points of view (some more sympathetic
>than others as can be culled from their prior posts of Wikipedia)
>then there is some amount of fairness or due process. Remember
>that the basis of arbitration is contract law, not any kind of 
>state sovereignity. We are working on it though ;-).
>
I suspect that anything bigger than a 3-judge panel could soon become 
unworkable.  The RK problem ended up on this mailing list where it 
produced interminable chatter without very much being accomplished 
through it.  Fairness requires that the members of the panel take time 
to objectively review the evidence, and produce a reasonably quick 
decision.  There will also be a need to eliminate from the panel, anyone 
who was previously a mediator in the matter, or who is himself involved 
in the dispute.

>The reality is that reasonable people do disagree and it is
>not bad that they do come to different decisions. In such
>cases their decisions can be reviewed and confirmed or
>overturned.
>
The idea of the panel's decisions being overthrown by an outside court 
is unrealistic.  Such litigation is bound to be expensive, with little 
chance of recovering costs.  Add to this the difficulties involving 
jurisdiction or bringing witnesses from around the world, and you have 
an effective deterrent against starting any such suit.

Ray

>