[WikiEN-l] Re: Arbitration Commitee Seeking Comment

Mon Jun 6 07:00:08 UTC 2005

Rebecca wrote:

>On 6/6/05, Michael Snow <wikipedia at earthlink.net> wrote:
>  
>
>> As a result, I think that for us mediation is more likely
>>to be useful much earlier in the process, as disputes are only beginning
>>and before they have really had a chance to heat up. This would require
>>watching more closely for situations where mediation can help, and a
>>more interventionist approach from the mediators, rather than waiting
>>for cases to come to them.
>>    
>>
>Once again, I think that's very true - but how can we get a system
>where these conflicts are actually attended to that quickly?
>  
>
The simplest thing that comes to mind is to put the Mediation Committee 
in charge of the Requests for comments page. I think this would, if we 
can get enough mediators with enough energy, help address structural 
issues with both processes.

There are two major complaints made about RfC. One is that the page is 
poorly maintained and regularly swells to an unwieldy size. The other is 
that it's not terribly effective, because many requests do not succeed 
in drawing much comment from people outside the dispute. Each of these 
problems also tends to exacerbate the other.

If, to make mediation workable, we want it to happen earlier in the 
dispute resolution process, we need something that will signal the 
existence of a dispute to the mediators. Right now, what signal do we 
have available? That's right, RfC, which is itself in need of attention 
from mediator-types.

In particular, it would be great to have lots of mediators working to 
solve the article content disputes on RfC. With more effort along these 
lines, we might see fewer content-related issues going to arbitration, 
and less pressure to come up with some kind of separate content 
arbitration. Or, if content arbitration does indeed prove necessary, 
their experience might help us know how to come up with better solutions 
when we get there.

--Michael Snow