Erik Moeller wrote,
I will state here for the record that I'm strongly
opposed to any
content arbitration committee. Decisions like this should be made by the
community, not by elected or appointed representatives. The solution to
dealing with prolonged disputes is to establish clear community
procedures to make decisions, such as binding votes under clear
conditions (e.g. a discussion has been going on for X weeks, all
arguments have been summarized, all options of the vote have been agreed
upon in consensus ..). Wikipedia does not need an editorial staff.
As I've often stated, if you absolutely rule out voting as a last
resort, you end up with clubs and cabals which make decisions instead.
This is exactly what a content committee would eventually become. Don't
destroy the village in order to save it.
I share Erik's concern about cabals, but I think this is an issue Mav has
addressed, satisfactorally, at length. Rotating elected members with
term-limits, and an appeals process, provide checks and balances.
I fundamentally disagree with Erik about the community vote. We all come
to Wikipedia because we offer different things -- some people know a lot
about the Bible, others about Cricket, others about linux, and so on. We
also all come here to learn things we do not know. I do not really
understand quantum mechanics -- you really think I should vote on whether
content is accurate or not? I do not know the physics literature -- you
really think I can vote on the repute of a given source?
There are some things I know a great deal about, and will argue my position
forcefully with anyone -- and can also recognize, easily, when someone
else's position is better than mine. This is far from true, however,
concerning most issues at Wikipedia. I think what motivates these
proposals, and Jguk's and Mav's proposals particularly, is the recognition
that no one here is an expert on everything, and the community needs people
to turn to for reliable, well-informed evaluations of content and disputes
over content. I think this is undeniable. And a full-community vote, far
from helping, will make things worse.
Checks, balances, and accountability, yes. But knowledge and experience,
yes too.
Steve
Steven L. Rubenstein
Associate Professor
Department of Sociology and Anthropology
Bentley Annex
Ohio University
Athens, Ohio 45701