[WikiEN-l] Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Sun Jun 5 18:27:19 UTC 2005

Mav wrote: "Going into the realm of deciding content disputes is something that the
community and Jimbo will need to sign off on. It is not just a matter of the
ArbCom ruling it so to make it so. We don't have that authority." 

Actually, Snowspinner made a comment on the RFC saying (correctly, I believe) that we 
are allowed to do that under the arbitration rules, as ratified by the community. On
the other hand, (as I described *in detail* in my problem description) we have avoided
doing that for fear of concentrating too much power in a single group of users. Also, 
we're not comptent to do it, either (although, again as I said in my lengthy problem
description, in many of these cases it is obvious even to a lay man which side is 
advocating crackpottery)  

I agree with Mav's comment that this isn't a black or white thing, though, and I am 
keeping an open mind as to possible solutions (although I remain unconvinced by 
arguments put forth by Tony Sideaway-et-al in favor of more-of-the-same -- keeping the 
status quo and/or reforming the mediation commitee). Tony's arguement is a sort of optomistic 
eventualism (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Eventualism). In other words, ignore the problem, 
let the users fight it out, come back in a year, and the article will have improved... 
probably. I find this to be a trite and downright lazy response to a real problem. Yes, it is 
true that in a year, the article will have probably improved. In the meantime, however, good 
users become frustrated from tangling with POV pushers (Think of Adam Carr as the 
canonical example, although lesser disputes like this arise on AIDS (with HIV deniars) and
Evolution (fucking creationists), and the people there too become burned out). What
do you tell someone who edits these articles when a new user comes along, and obviously starts 
pushing an agenda? It's very easy to view Wikipedia from 2,000 miles high and say everything 
is fine and getting better, but it's a bit less rosy when you actually come down to earth 
and actually have to deal with someone like this. In such a case, I don't think Tony's plan 
for strategic do-nothingness is the best solution -- I certainly think we can do better. 

On the other hand, I think having the arbcom bring in content advisors is an idea with 
potential. It's got all the makings of a workable solution -- it's simple, and it avoids
the problem we are most trying to avoid (the excess concentration of power I mentioned).

--Mark 