[WikiEN-l] Wikiquette "committee"

Mon Oct 6 03:33:40 UTC 2003

From: "Geoff Burling" <llywrch at agora.rdrop.com>
> On Sun, 5 Oct 2003, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> > Alex R. wrote:
> >
> [snip]
> >
> > >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.
> >
> IANAL, & this is a US-centric view, but I'd go further & say that the
> possibility that a court would even hear a case like this is unrealistic.

Why is it unrealistic? Volunteers who have been snubbed by organizations
often bring law suits against such organizations. Parents whose children
are thrown out of an after school activity. Sometimes they do it to just
to get publicity. Why is it US-centric? Arbitration is actually much more
common in Europe than the US, after all it was created by the Roman
jurisconsults, it is not an American invention, such a statement shows
a lack of knowledge of the history of arbitration and the interplay between
private contract and the rules of public order. Courts confirm and overturn
arbitration decisions all the time, check any legal reporter and you will
see this is a daily fact of life in most societies. That is why practically
all societies have arbitration rules in their civil law.

> As I understand what we are talking about concerns simple banning --
> whether or not someone could contribute to Wikipedia for a definite or
> indefinite period of time. And I doubt that as long as Wikipedia is a
> volunteer activity -- where no one is making any money from
contributing --
> any court would find merit in hearing the case.

What the court would do is overturn the ban, yes, then Wikipedia would
have to reinstate the user. That is what we are talking about, not a court
awarding damages, but reviewing the arbitration proceeding and saying
"you guys did it wrong, you think you can do whatever you want, well,
you cannot, there are some basic principles that must be followed in
a democratic society and you did not follow them."

> And if there was some conceivable tangible advantage to being a
contributor
> or editor (e.g., a clear pattern of contributors to Wikipedia being hired
> to, say, a publishing job), by that point I'd expect we have hammered out
> some kind of predictable pattern for how people get banned -- other than
> the vague "this contributor does not play nice with others."

All I am saying is that reinventing the wheel is a pretty stupid idea,
especially when you decide it is oblong when for thousands of
years they have been making it round.  If you are going to create
a system of arbitration make sure it sticks, that way when someone
takes Wikipedia to court the judge will be on Wikipedia's side,
not the agrieved user who was banned without respect to there
rights under arbitration.

Also if you do go to such court and the ban is enforced you have
the extra added effect that if the user tries to circumvent the ban
they may then be held in contempt of court as the court's confirmation
of an arbital award converts it into a judgment that is enforceable
by the courts.

If you want to create an arbitration scheme
why not do it along the well recognized legal principles that exist
so that you do not have your decisions overturned by people you
do not even know (i.e. judges who have jurisdiction if Wikipedia
does not play fair with contributors). Is that so unreasonable?

Alex756