--- On Mon, 9/8/10, Oliver Keyes <scire.fac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's linky here, Oliver: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDCOM
> > --
> > ~Keegan
> >
> > My bad. Anyway, to quote "The role of the Mediation
> Committee is explicitly
> to try to resolve disputes, especially those *involving
> content*" (italics
> not added by moi).
The mediation committee is only there to "mediate" between the parties who have
turned up at any given content page. It is not there to lay down the law as
regards content, and is *not* a solution to the potential problem of
self-selected, biased contributors overwhelming a given topic area by sheer
force of numbers, and sheer investment of time.
Soliciting wider community input through a content RfC or one of the various
noticeboards is the best en:Wikipedia has to offer, and editors' responses to
such community discussions (is community input ignored, or taken on board?) are
considered in arbitration cases.
It is generally true that contentious topics attract polarised editors who very
strongly believe in their causes, and that middle-ground people are often
crowded out. If one of the polarised sides is numerically stronger, or has more
time to spend on Wikipedia, they may carry the day, to the detriment of an NPOV
article.
I don't see an easy solution. Any solution that involves a community-elected
committee ruling on content might be worse for the project than the present
problem.
One thing that helps is external writers criticising Wikipedia content. It's
the only way the wider Wikipedia community can be galvanised into action, and
made to take an interest in articles they wouldn't otherwise care about.
Someone has to make a stink. Even a thread at the Wikipedia Review site can
sometimes help.
A.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
