[WikiEN-l] Anti-scientific bias has me hopping mad!

Wed Oct 8 04:21:42 UTC 2003

 From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
 > Alex R. wrote:
> 
> >From: "Jimmy Wales" <jwales at bomis.com>
> >
> >> Make a specific
> >>complaint against a specific person with a specific set of edits to
> >>back it up.
> >>
> >This is the essence of what any mediation or arbitration complaint
> >should be.
> >
> Well, let's not try to read too much into that.  Mediation and 
> arbitration should apply to the bad behaviour of some contributors.  It 
> should never be used to support one POV over another. 

Isn't that what making a complaint will show? This is the problem
with the current system. If you are going to make allegations back
them up with specifics. If the specifics show that it is really about
POV then maybe some mediation will work, but the Arbitration
Committee will have to listen to the arguments of the accused that
the complaint should be dismissed because POV is no reason for
a ban.

It is my opinion that most of these alleged users will be exonerated
once the complaint is out in the open. I see arbitration and mediation 
as a way to weed out these kind of things, not to create some kind
of cowboy/cowgirl justice system that is there that will allow Jimbo
to put his imprimur onto any crazy suggestion that a bunch of people
who are pro banning want to implement.

At least half the members of any artibration committee should be
people who are anti-banning so that they keep the other half of
the committee honest. I think that allowing people just to volunteer
who are just pro-banning is a bad idea for this reason (there has also
been some discussion on talk pages about this that I agree with).

Some people seem to think that suggesting an arbitration system
that is organized is an attempt to ban a lot of people, au contraire,
it is to prevent banning except in the most outrageous behavior
and not to allow it to excalate and pollute the collaborative
environment in which we all work. Giving it rules and structure
will help to make it more difficult, and will give the accused user
a chance to convince the pro-banners that  the anti-banners have
some merit in their arguments. That is the only dynamic that makes
sense, just having a committee that bans anyone who brings a 
complaint is crazy, if someone brings a complaint alleging unwiki
behaviour the committee will help to clarify what such behaviour
is and isn't. My bet is that a lot of disputes will be resolved amicably
and that people who might be banned won't be either because
those bringing the complaint will see that banning is not really
warranted or those who engage in activity that might lead to
a ban will be warned and will decide to tone down their behaviour
and try to focus on contributing in a collaborative way.

We are talking about transformative justice here (that is the
civil version of restorative justice) not retributive justice.
I personally do not beleive in retribution. Justice is a process
that should enlighten and help people live together, it is not
intended to punish except in the most severe cases where
no other redistribution is useful and even then such punative
action is not preferred if there is another solution.

Alex756