Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > >> > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't >> > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? >> >> Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is >> on >> top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be >> copied >> over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in >> open >> discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that. >> > > Well it was Erik who finally convinced me of the superiority of > open-sourced > over closed-source technology. Open-source software allows for a greater > degree of freedom of movement, which itself has a synergistic > relationship > with greater social freedom concepts in general. > > So I agree with your implied meaning, that in a very short amount of > time, > we can make it so that no one has to buy or else deal with Microsoft's > products at all. > > -Stevertigo > And abandon the star chamber, absolutely not! Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the > lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean > "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' I meant slang words, idioms, etc. Is that what you're talking about? > I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any > specifics. That's > why I asked. Maybe I can't be more specific, due to inexperience. That sounds like an excuse, but still, it's the truth. Emily On Jun 28, 2009, at 2:13 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Emily Monroe > wrote: > >> I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an >> English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who >> can't interpret metamorphic speech very well. >> > > Excellent points. > > Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the > lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean > "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' Interesting point, but in > reality > we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial" > (language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," > and thus > more direct. > >> Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the >> terms "too much" and "can happen"? > >> What I've already said, actually. > > > I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any > specifics. That's > why I asked. > > >> I've read a >> little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't >> participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus >> there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ >> cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they >> participate on something that talks about Wikipedia? >> > > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > -Stevertigo > > "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis > "Here comes the sun." - George Harrison > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't > > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on > top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied > over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open > discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that. > Well it was Erik who finally convinced me of the superiority of open-sourced over closed-source technology. Open-source software allows for a greater degree of freedom of movement, which itself has a synergistic relationship with greater social freedom concepts in general. So I agree with your implied meaning, that in a very short amount of time, we can make it so that no one has to buy or else deal with Microsoft's products at all. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > -Stevertigo > Not really, doing the work is hard enough. Additional communication is on top of that. If decisions are made privately, it would have to be copied over again to make them public. The only alternative is to engage in open discussion on the wiki. They can talk about why they don't do that. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> >>> > No >>> >> >>> So what was your point? >>> >> >> Erm, I was answering.. your question. > > No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to > multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither > multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point. > Wikipedia-l is not a failure, just not used much any more. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Carcharoth wrote: > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigo wrote: > > Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in > openly > > discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? > > If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-) > Hm. If Arbcom mood is the impeding issue, then anything the community can do to mitigate Arbcom caseload is naturally the first solution. Beyond that, issues related to how Arbcom members deal with stress, have to change their editing patterns, have to reconceptualize how they interact with people, etc. may require some kind of closed support group. I would not object even proposals for Wikimedia to hire cousellors for our Arbcom members from each of our various language wikis. [I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.] > Identifying yourself as an Arbcom member might be appropriate. Something like "User:Carcharoth (Arbcom, Jan. 2009 - Dec. 2010, inactive)" would work. More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case > that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is > closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of > responses eventually. Hm. By "right venue" do you mean arbcom-l or some IRC? Wouldn't a "dispute resolution" mailing list work well for this purpose? > The main problem, as those who are current > arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to > attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is > pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with > simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff > - it's human nature really). > Hm. Issues that we can deal with on res-l, and perhaps we can even find solutions for them. I have ideas for mitigating caseload, as I'm sure do you and others. The main issue in that aspect is just dealing with them. A closed list is not the place for brainstorming. One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after > the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing > how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement > of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved > articles) have improved at all. Good points, though "returning to the old discussions" implies that there actually were "discussions," and that by being "old" they were also not currently relevant. There are certain very old things that remain relevant, despite what anyone says about their age. I'm sure this applies in the context of Arbcom case arguments as well. Another aspect of review would be > whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles > would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices. > Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies, > but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a > certain area. That's like finding that a house is on fire, and at the same time telling the fire department that putting it out is optional, and subject to only whims - whims that might mathematically resemble common housecat herding patterns. Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends > on the resulting community discussions. Isn't voting still evil? Just like IAR is still a "pillar" of "principle?" > In some cases, though, those > community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews > could point this out. > Six months is a long time. We should try living in the real world, instead of a shell. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 8:13 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't > participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? If you catch us in a good mood, maybe. :-) [I'm currently one of those arbitrators, if that's a bit cryptic for some.] More seriously, if you find the right venue and present a good case that something needs discussion or clarification, even after a case is closed, you stand a good chance of getting a reasonable level of responses eventually. The main problem, as those who are current arbitrators and those who were former arbitrators, should be able to attest, is time and the amount of stuff to deal with. Some of it is pure overload, other bits are time-management (some of us deal with simple or interesting stuff first, before tackling the difficult stuff - it's human nature really). One of the things that has been suggested, is reviews of cases after the dust has settled. Not returning to the old discussions, but seeing how effective the remedies have been, and looking at the enforcement of cases, and whether the articles involved (if the case involved articles) have improved at all. Another aspect of review would be whether any of the policy-related stuff suggested by ArbCom principles would gain community consensus to be incorporated into polices. Technically, the principles should be interpreting existing policies, but sometimes ArbCom does strongly suggest that change is needed in a certain area. Whether that happens or not, as Fred points out, depends on the resulting community discussions. In some cases, though, those community discussions don't actually take place, and six-month reviews could point this out. Eh. I seem to have six-month reviews on the brain for some reason. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to >> multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither >> multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point. >> > > You definition of "success" is admirably vague. Does "America" have to > survive forever to be a "success" in promoting human freedom (such that > there eventually be no more need for a particular nation called the "U.S.A") > ? The defunct-ness of a thing is not an indication of its failure. Take > your ancestors for example. I wasn't aware that was the stated goal of the USA, but that's not really relevant. Wikipedia-l didn't cease to be needed, it was replaced because it wasn't up to the job. > And yes, it was originally an international mailing list, IIRC, albeit there > were few international wikis then, few people used it for such, wrote in > English anyway, and in any case IIRC the first fork from wikipedia-l was > en-l largely to separate the former for global wiki usage. Exactly, they wrote in English because multilingual mailing lists don't work. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to > multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither > multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point. > You definition of "success" is admirably vague. Does "America" have to survive forever to be a "success" in promoting human freedom (such that there eventually be no more need for a particular nation called the "U.S.A") ? The defunct-ness of a thing is not an indication of its failure. Take your ancestors for example. And yes, it was originally an international mailing list, IIRC, albeit there were few international wikis then, few people used it for such, wrote in English anyway, and in any case IIRC the first fork from wikipedia-l was en-l largely to separate the former for global wiki usage. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> > No >> > >> So what was your point? >> > > Erm, I was answering.. your question. No, before that. You mentioned wikipedia-l in reference to multilingual lists being a success but wikipedia-l is neither multilingual nor a success, so I fail to see your point. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:13 PM, stevertigo wrote: > Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal," > "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that > are not "formal," and thus more direct. > Correction: "..not "formal" or "direct." -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > No > > So what was your point? > Erm, I was answering.. your question. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Emily Monroe wrote: > I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an > English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who > can't interpret metamorphic speech very well. > Excellent points. Just a little nitpick: "metamorphic" is not used in linguistics - the lingustic term is "morphological," but I understand you probably mean "idiomatic" or 'conceptually amorphous.' Interesting point, but in reality we just use the terms "informal," "idiomatic" or "colloquial" (language/speech) to deal with expressions that are not "formal," and thus more direct. > Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the > terms "too much" and "can happen"? > What I've already said, actually. I read everything you've written here and didn't catch any specifics. That's why I asked. > I've read a > little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't > participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus > there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ > cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they > participate on something that talks about Wikipedia? > Good point, Emily. Ironically enough though, Arbcom itself doesn't participate much in openly discussing its cases. Strange isn't it? -Stevertigo "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." - Louis Brandeis "Here comes the sun." - George Harrison ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> > Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language >> has >> > its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of >> > wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by >> > default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It >> > worked out pretty well, didn't it? >> >> I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a >> significant number of emails in languages other than English? >> > > No So what was your point? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/28 stevertigo : > > Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language > has > > its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of > > wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by > > default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It > > worked out pretty well, didn't it? > > I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a > significant number of emails in languages other than English? > No ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to > > unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund. > > > > - d. > > Not really, I've been attending to it and have either unblocked or > created accounts for about 50 people just this month. > Hm. I guess its a good thing for blocked people that David isn't the one watching that list. -Stevertigo Excuse me: "Users." Not "people." ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each >> language has >> its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage >> of >> wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by >> default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. >> It >> worked out pretty well, didn't it? > > I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a > significant number of emails in languages other than English? > No Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 Fred Bauder : >> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >>> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. >>> The >>> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. >> >> I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR >> list. >> > > It is a general purpose list to discuss any matter regarding the English > Wikipedia, including dispute resolution. About the only thing that will > get you in real trouble is trying to discuss the content of an article, > which get a "to the talk page" response. DR in the abstract is fine (that's what we're talking about now), but bringing up specific disputes usually results in being told to take it to the appropriate DR forum, whether they are content disputes or user conduct disputes or any other kind of dispute (except possibly policy disputes). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/28 Thomas Dalton : >> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : > >>> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. >>> The >>> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > >> I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR >> list. > > > It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to > unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund. > > > - d. > Not really, I've been attending to it and have either unblocked or created accounts for about 50 people just this month. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice > [to] the > conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding > my two > rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything. I like formality--plus I tend not to use idioms online. Even in an English forum, we'll have people who don't read English well, or who can't interpret metamorphic speech very well. > Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the > terms > "too much" and "can happen"? "Too much can happen"=What I've already said, actually. I've read a little in the arbcom archives, and know people sometimes won't participate in their own RfC, or won't comply with whatever consensus there is (that was achieved through DR). If people won't participate/ cooperate with something most definitely *on wiki*, why would they participate on something that talks about Wikipedia? Emily On Jun 28, 2009, at 1:37 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe > wrote: > >> Just to add my voice in the conversation... >> > > We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice > [to] the > conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding > my two > rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything. > > I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have >> dispute resolution to happen. >> > > >> *About* resolution is another >> matter--I have no opinion about that. >> > > Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles > (helpers) > could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly > down to > Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution). > > We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though > there are > probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus > doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its > improvement is > unnecessary. > > If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might > understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with. > > Too much can happen. > > > Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the > terms > "too much" and "can happen"? > > >> People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc. > > > Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a > criticism > Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and > therefore > they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their > emails. > But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the > wiki. A > "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it > up to > forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form > masks the > email address, but shows the username. > > >> I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute >> resolution will cause a dispute. >> > > The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George > Takei came > back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of > reliable sources. > > -Stevertigo > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
If this mailing list is created, I predict an "article rescue" list will follow shortly. The fact of the matter is that anyone interested in helping out in dispute resolution already has a vast array of places to go to and to get involved. Now, if a bot was to mail out a summary from various places, that might work. But a centralised place to ask for help is likely to be overwhelmed if it ever becomes popular, and will be accused of elitism and forum shopping if people parachute in to help out. Publicising discussions is tricky. I started a mini-how-to guide on it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Publicising_discussions The critical bit I think is here: "Normal discussions do not always need large amounts of input, and a balance needs to be struck between gaining sufficient input for consensus, and overwhelming a discussion with too much input." What I would like to see is examples of the very largest discussions and polls (e.g. ArbCom elections, polls on Flagged Revisions, the poll on the Main Page redesign, some of the large naming disputes) to the the intermediate ones (RfCs, RfAs) to the smallest ones (some dispute between two people on some obscure page in some forgotten corner of Wikipedia). Of course, WP:3O (third opinion) was tailor-made for resolving the 'small' disputes between two people. But I'd still like to see examples of intermediate-sized discussions, and what level of participation or publicity is appropriate there. For example - a banning discussion at ANI - how much attention and of what sort, does that receive? Compare to a ban proposal handed down in an ArbCom case. Compare policy-related discussions on ArbCom cases with discussion on (sometimes poorly-watched) policy pages, and compare again with discussions on the most widely watched policy talk pages. As Charles said, this is a complex structure we've built here. Carcharoth On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 7:37 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe wrote: > >> Just to add my voice in the conversation... >> > > We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the > conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two > rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything. > > I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have >> dispute resolution to happen. >> > > >> *About* resolution is another >> matter--I have no opinion about that. >> > > Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers) > could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to > Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution). > > We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are > probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus > doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is > unnecessary. > > If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might > understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with. > > Too much can happen. > > > Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms > "too much" and "can happen"? > > >> People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc. > > > Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism > Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore > they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails. > But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A > "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to > forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the > email address, but shows the username. > > >> I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute >> resolution will cause a dispute. >> > > The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came > back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of > reliable sources. > > -Stevertigo > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:37 AM, stevertigo wrote: > > A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up > to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. > This is not actually true. Apparently dres-l is too close to someone's username. The account is user:dres-list. Will set up as needed. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > >> An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute >> resolution >> mailing list. > > Why not discuss on this list? > > Carcharoth > This list can take only so much discussion of dispute resolution. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> stevertigo wrote: >> Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days >> when >> Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove. >> >> > Right. The old days, where there was some chance of coming up with right > answers by kicking ideas around. Before we actually succeeded in > building the most complex website ever and getting taken seriously. > > Charles > We can do the same thing now, if we choose to. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. >> The >> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > > I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR > list. > It is a general purpose list to discuss any matter regarding the English Wikipedia, including dispute resolution. About the only thing that will get you in real trouble is trying to discuss the content of an article, which get a "to the talk page" response. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Emily Monroe wrote: >> Too much can happen. > > Stevertigo wrote: > Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" > and "can happen"? Note: For some reason, in my previous post, Emilys statement above was shown unthreaded in the pipermail display, making it look like I said "too much can happen" On my Gmail it looks fine. Dunno why. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:49 PM, Emily Monroe wrote: > Just to add my voice in the conversation... > We usually employ the idiom "two cents," but you are right - "voice [to] the conversation" is formal and probably translates quite well. "Adding my two rupees.." probably doesn't mean anything. I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have > dispute resolution to happen. > > *About* resolution is another > matter--I have no opinion about that. > Think of it like a patch of sky (mailing list) where the eagles (helpers) could see things better (overview): They would still have to fly down to Earth (wiki) to do their hunting (dispute resolution). We can also discuss dispute resolution issues in general, though there are probably a few yokels who think dispute resolution is perfect and thus doesn't need improvement, and thus think discussion about its improvement is unnecessary. If you are already a bit familiar with our DR process(es), you might understand there are general issues that need to be dealt with. Too much can happen. Ah. But could you please clarify what specifically you mean by the terms "too much" and "can happen"? > People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc. Well I agree there is a little technical issue here, and this is a criticism Ive had of IRC for a long time; that it exposes people's IPs and therefore they might not want to participate. Not everyone wants to show their emails. But we can set up a way to submit emails to the list through the wiki. A "dres-l" user account has just been set up on the wiki. I can set it up to forward any messages to the "dres-l" list, I think. IIRC the form masks the email address, but shows the username. > I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute > resolution will cause a dispute. > The word is "iconic." Not "ironic." "Ironic" would be if George Takei came back from the dead to edit his article, and we banned him for lack of reliable sources. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has > its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of > wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by > default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It > worked out pretty well, didn't it? I'm not sure I was subscribed to it that long ago... Was there ever a significant number of emails in languages other than English? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
stevertigo wrote: > Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when > Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove. > > Right. The old days, where there was some chance of coming up with right answers by kicking ideas around. Before we actually succeeded in building the most complex website ever and getting taken seriously. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
David Gerard wrote: > It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to > unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund. Well, there you go. Thomas Dalton wrote: > wikipedia-l is pretty much dormant. I haven't counted, but I'd guess > it gets about one thread every couple of months. I hardly thing that > is an example of a list that works. > Ah, but you aren't abusing logic by ignoring the fact that each language has its own list anyway are you? My point dealt with the historical usage of wikipedia-l as the *only mailing list, and by default/convention/necessity/genius was an international mailing list. It worked out pretty well, didn't it? -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:11 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/28 stevertigo : > > Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. > The > > dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > > I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list. > Hm. I guess I may have been going all the way back to 2003-5. The days when Jimbo sorted everything out and blasted everyone with wikilove. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> > Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis >> submit? >> >> Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox >> full of emails written in languages I don't understand. >> > > Hm. They do work. In fact wikipedia-l was a kind of international mailing > list, though in reality most people who deal with intnl issues write in > English anyway. wikipedia-l is pretty much dormant. I haven't counted, but I'd guess it gets about one thread every couple of months. I hardly thing that is an example of a list that works. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/6/28 stevertigo : >> Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The >> dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. > I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list. It used to be a place to send unblock requests. These then went to unblock-en-l, which is now all but moribund. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The > dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. I've been on this list for years, I don't remember it ever being a DR list. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > [Gossip] - We talk about whatever people start threads on. If you have > other > discussion topics within the scope of the mailing list (like this one, > for example), then start threads for them. > [Bonk] - That's because there are already plenty of places to discuss > issues > with specific articles. You still haven't said why a mailing list > would be better than any of the existing ways. > Because this is not a dispute resolution mailing list, as it once was. The dispute resolution mailing lists - are now closed-source. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/28 stevertigo : > > Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis > submit? > > Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox > full of emails written in languages I don't understand. > Hm. They do work. In fact wikipedia-l was a kind of international mailing list, though in reality most people who deal with intnl issues write in English anyway. And this is to suppose that after some short time of usage, there wouldn't be some language forking going on? Seems natural that when intl usage gets too high, maybe 18%, then we can start forking. There is also a neat little tool now called Google Translate - I use a little toolbar button in ffox that does it in one click (much better than the extensions that try to do it all, actually). Not perfect, and not usable for certain things, but usable anyway to read things and to send terse, grammatically formal and concise messages. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> > Why not discuss on this list? >> >> I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly >> adequate place for that. >> > > Because dispute resolution is broad, general, and conceptual enough to deal > with separately from wikien-l, which, again, appears now largely devoted to > what the Daily Mirror says about us. We talk about whatever people start threads on. If you have other discussion topics within the scope of the mailing list (like this one, for example), then start threads for them. > And of course, the fact that people on this list will routinely bounce or > bonk anyone who raises specific article issues may also be a factor in > dealing with dispute resolution separately. That's because there are already plenty of places to discuss issues with specific articles. You still haven't said why a mailing list would be better than any of the existing ways. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > Why not discuss on this list? > > I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly > adequate place for that. > Because dispute resolution is broad, general, and conceptual enough to deal with separately from wikien-l, which, again, appears now largely devoted to what the Daily Mirror says about us. And of course, the fact that people on this list will routinely bounce or bonk anyone who raises specific article issues may also be a factor in dealing with dispute resolution separately. Wiken-l would thus be entirely free to talk about how WP looks in the media mirror. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 stevertigo : > Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit? Because multi-lingual mailing lists don't work. I don't want my inbox full of emails written in languages I don't understand. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for > dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion > *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - > for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you > need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is > actually intended to happen. > "dres-l" (see note at bottom) will at first deal with overall dispute resolution issues, and if specific things come up, we can point them in the right direction on the wiki. We of course do not want to say that things that should be dealt at Arbcom would be handled on dren-l I understand you are under some impression that a "dres-l" list would somehow be compromised if it dealt with specific issues. Think of it this way: Someone in a dispute on Talk:Peace about the Peace article lead could email the list (through a simple on-wiki interface, by the way), and say "I've got a problem" -- dres listers could simply point them to a specific page on Wiki, or even (gasp) help them get things done on the page itself. Maybe even helping to resolve the conflict (less work for Arbcom), or helping disputants file a compliant to formal DRR. Keep in mind that while it makes sense to diversify certain processes (cleanup, VFD/AFD, etc.) it also makes sense to integrate those things which are too divergent and need a kind re-integration. For example, I put together the WP:DRR page (now "Dispute resolution requests) to give people an interface to all of the various dispute resolution processes. Its still a mess for the simple reason that 1) each "dispute resolution" process has its own unique rules, and submitting forms, helper templates, etc., and 2) some of them are essentially useless: "Negotiation", (huh?) "Talk pages" (eh?), Mediation Cabal (GMAB), "Wikiquette" (WTF?). And note that ANI isn't even on there. ANI is now perhaps the most central DR hub on the wiki, and its not even considered as part of DR. "Integration" is the relevant concept. Does anyone disagree that certain things along the lines of "integration" would be good for DR? So, things need to be done to DR. The valves are knocking, the timing is off, and the temperature guage is spiking. -Stevertigo Note: Why not make it a general "dres-l" and let all language wikis submit? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 Charles Matthews : > Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it > means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an > edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed > out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of > a dispute in personal terms. I don't think the term is ambiguous, it's just broad. It means the same thing in all those contexts - an attempt to end a dispute in a way that best serves the project. Different venues have different ways of achieving that, but they are all trying to do the same thing. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/28 Carcharoth : > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > > >> An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution >> mailing list. > > Why not discuss on this list? I agree. This list, or the village pump, would seem a perfectly adequate place for that. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 4:10 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution > mailing list. Why not discuss on this list? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >> >>> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton >>> wrote: >>> >>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. > You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. >>> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in >>> my >>> humble opinion. >>> >> >> No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for >> dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion >> *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - >> for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you >> need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is >> actually intended to happen. >> >> > Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it > means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an > edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed > out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of > a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at > [[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page, > and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism > (disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look > like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for > discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that > people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what > the content of the dispute is. > > So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual > content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution". > > Charles > An example of the sort of thing we might discuss on a dispute resolution mailing list. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> >> >>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >>> Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. >>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for >>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I >>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. >>> >>> >> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my >> humble opinion. >> > > No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for > dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion > *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - > for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you > need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is > actually intended to happen. > > Needs saying that "dispute resolution" is an ambiguous term. What it means in an RfC is not what it means in Arbitration. What it means in an edit war is an iterative process by which troublesome points get ironed out. What it means in Mediation is some effort to define the grounds of a dispute in personal terms. There is long-running dispute at [[humanism]] for which one solution would be to make that a dab page, and my recent contribution was to prompt the creation of [[humanism (disambiguation)]] so that we could see what such a page would look like. That dispute might need to be taken to [[Wikipedia:Mergers for discussion]], for example. About the only common factor, really, is that people in a dispute should be required to say in their own words what the content of the dispute is. So that anywhere where people do so state their view of the actual content of an onsite dispute really is a locus of "dispute resolution". Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
AGK wrote: > > I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-)) > that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the > intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal > is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most > effectively undertaken by actually implementing it and setting it on a > trial run. I do find your approach to be a paradox, if not necessarily worthy of Wilde. "We are all entangled in threaded discussion, but some of us are thinking of setting up _a new mailing list_." Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> > You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to > label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative. I agree, Charles. "Bicker" was poor word choice on my part. The comments of everybody have been quite constructive, and I was not my intention to dismiss anybody's comments (most especially when such a dismissal would be on the grounds that their comments were not in line with my school of thought). I would echo my suggestion (with the exception of "bickering" ;-)) that a proactive approach is needed to break what seems to be the intractability of this disagreement. Assessing whether this proposal is successful (i.e., whether it becomes a useful tool) would be most effectively undertaken by actually implementing it and setting it on a trial run. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom > case > where "wikilawyering" was a finding? > Sure, and it's a classic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Benjamin_Gatti#Wikilawyering Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion > than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive > process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would > work for that one. > t > David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG > Yes, nearly every talk page and noticeboard is already a dispute resolution mechanism, way much. The list will fail unless it functions, to a certain extent, as a clearing house of significant matters. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Just to add my voice in the conversation... I also don't think it's a good idea to have a mailing list to have dispute resolution to happen. Too much can happen. People will be unable or unwilling to join, etc. *About* resolution is another matter--I have no opinion about that. I also find it kind of ironic that a discussion about dispute resolution will cause a dispute. Emily On Jun 27, 2009, at 4:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >> On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote: >> >>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. >>> >>> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic >>> for >>> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, >>> but I >>> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. >>> >> >> Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, >> in my >> humble opinion. > > No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for > dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion > *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - > for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you > need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is > actually intended to happen. > > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> AGK wrote: >> Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in >> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). >> > You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label > discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative. > > I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the > customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that > were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be > redundant in our context. And they are not. Anyone who really advocates > for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take > into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", > mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be > "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just > wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in > onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters. > > Charles > It's time to introduce the hoi polloi to the crushing burdens born by the arbitration committee. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo : > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >> > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. >> >> You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for >> that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I >> can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. >> > > Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my > humble opinion. No, you can't. I don't support any proposal for a new mailing list for dispute resolution. However, I won't object to one for discussion *about* DR (that's the difference between consensus and unaminity - for consensus you just need people to not object, for unanimity you need their support). I do object to a mailing list where DR is actually intended to happen. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, David Goodman wrote: > Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion > than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive > process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would > work for that one. > I agree that mailing lists are poor technology. They don't allow corrections, renaming, etc, logical restructuring, etc. But they do have a kind of fluidity that others do not yet have and I suppose that is why I promote this technology's usage for dispute resolution specifically. Or generally, if one views DR as a larger issue. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. > > You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for > that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I > can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. > Well we can count on your support at least. That's called progress, in my humble opinion. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Charles Matthews > > > I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the > customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that > were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be > redundant in our context. And they are not. The Arbcom's definition for "wikilawyering"? Can you show us an Arbcom case where "wikilawyering" was a finding? > Anyone who really advocates > for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take > into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", > mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be > "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just > wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in > onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters. > Hm. Interesting points for the dres-en mailing list, Charles. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Perhaps we suffer more from a superfluity of forums for discussion than a shortage of them--with the one exception of a definitive process of settling content issues., & I doubt a mailing list would work for that one. t David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 5:37 PM, stevertigo wrote: > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK wrote: > >> You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the >> mailing >> list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up >> DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request >> with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. >> Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or >> a >> bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in >> the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). >> Respectfully, > > > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. > > -Stevertigo > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo : > Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. You won't get it. Dispute resolution is too controversial a topic for that. You might manage consensus on some fairly minor proposals, but I can't see unanimity happening for anything non-trivial. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:12 PM, AGK wrote: > You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the > mailing > list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up > DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request > with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. > Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or > a > bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in > the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). > Respectfully, Hm. Well, as for myself, I was striving for unanimity. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
AGK wrote: > Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in > the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). > You know, it doesn't actually help people to be thoughtful to label discussion "bickering" because some comments are negative. I happen to disagree strongly with Stevertigo's comment that "the customer is always" right in relation to dispute resolution. If that were true, terms like "wikilawyer" and "vexatious litigant" would be redundant in our context. And they are not. Anyone who really advocates for the opening of another front in dispute resolution had better take into account the way our mechanisms become, for some of our "customers", mere instruments or means to their ends. The point is not to be "proactive" for the sake of activity, but to forward the mission. Just wait until DR-en is subject to a barrage of "evidence" not admissible in onsite terms, but said to be crucial to someone's view of matters. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
You know, we don't really *need* everybody's agreement to create the mailing list. If an editor is interested is genuinely interested in setting up DR-en-l (ugh, the abbreviations begin...), they are free to file a request with a developer over bugzilla or over IRC. Those that wish to may join. Time will prove who is correct: those that say the list is a good idea, or a bad one. Let's be proactive - rather than bicker and debate endlessly (in the exhaustive yet courteous manner that only Wikipedians are able to). Respectfully, AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 2:01 PM, stevertigo wrote: > please accept this is* a kind of ... > as* -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Risker wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo > > Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage > > of "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements. > > In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can. > > As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial > balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but > fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and > doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be > any group of people. Risker saith: "it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known >group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly" Hm. Strikes me that a public group can critique things quite "honestly but fairly" also. I mean, that's how this list works isn't it? Otherwise I would never submit ideas here at all. Risker spoketh: "Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people." Hm. Don't you mean "any closed group of people"? I mean, I'm inferring this from the context of our conversation. If, in your statement you imply, without explicitly saying so, a change in our conversational context from "closed groups" to "any groups," and I thus just did not notice this change, please accept this is a kind of backhanded apology. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> > In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an > onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly. > > Charles > Precisely the kind of thing we might discuss. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial > balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but > fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, > and > doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be > any group of people. > > Risker > There wasn't anything wrong with what was done; the problem was a running sore and had been repeatedly discussed. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
As far as I know, it wasn't an announcement, it was sending up a trial balloon amongst a known group who was likely to critique it honestly but fairly, before taking it public. Strikes me that happens all the time, and doesn't necessarily have to involve foundation-related lists but could be any group of people. Risker 2009/6/27 stevertigo > Risker wrote: > > > It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't > >> be > >> possible, sorry. > >> > > > Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage > of > > > > "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements. > > > > In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can. > > -Stevertigo > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:37 AM, stevertigo wrote: I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then), > as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the > context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and.. > well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less > conducive to the things which make beings happy. > Heh. I forgot to mention "light." Anyway, I've emailed CBass about starting up the new list. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 10:24 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in > "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve > disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a > scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list > threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But > of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the > "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the > right, and bring the business to a halt. > > I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list > technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years > of ArbCom mail. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will > give good results, given the nature of lists. > Technically speaking, I was being a bit ironic in referring to mailing lists as "technology [that works]." Maybe my irony was too subtle. Solzhenitsyn. Consider that with each new context, the same ideas will be reanimated to see if they actually work in the new context, even while they failed in the old. I like your point about electrons (now) being less useful than chalk (then), as it goes to the real issue of interaction in being: Interaction in the context of human being requires human expressiveness through gesture and.. well.. being. Electron interaction concepts can be quite different and less conducive to the things which make beings happy. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
stevertigo wrote: > CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should > be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout." > > Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and > modernistic knockabout? > Here's a literary answer I bring out every few years: Solzhenitsyn in "First Circle" described the use of chalk and blackboards to resolve disputes (in the context of scientists in a "camp" supposed to design a scrambler phone for Stalin). That apparently worked; while mailing list threads seem designed to prove that electrons are worse than chalk. But of course that is largely a function of the rules and moderation: in the "First Circle" context the audience would quickly decide who was in the right, and bring the business to a halt. I do not have the faith you expressed in the efficacy of "mailing list technology", an opinion perhaps not unconnected with reading three years of ArbCom mail. It is entirely appropriate to ask whether a list will give good results, given the nature of lists. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Risker wrote: > It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't >> be >> possible, sorry. >> > Yes I knew that. I was simply making an obverse point about the mis-usage of > "private" lists for sweeping public project announcements. > In any case, I try to avoid closed-source technology wherever I can. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 9:56 AM, Charles Matthews < charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com> wrote: > I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a > list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an > elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute > resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list. Such as > BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters, or overview of current activity > (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly > get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable > edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and > clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends > to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect > some fairly primitive knockabout. > > In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an > onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly. In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an authority over disputes to make the lower tiers of dispute resolution correct --such that they be actually usable and that people will innately know how to "use them.. correctly." It is the *customer that is always right, Charles. Not the vendor. CM: "Blind men and an elephant.. different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list" - This is exactly how mailing list technology works. CM: "You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation?" AGF and NOT generally answer these as well. But again, as with other stated concerns, I do not see what value there is in being afraid of what may be said by someone. People are intelligent enough to deal with whatever comes up, and no amount of pre-programming is going to substitute for intelligence. CM: "If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout." Is primitive knockabout any worse or better than organized and modernistic knockabout? -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Marc Riddell wrote: > on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > > > > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss > > dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. > > This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the > > arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership. > > > Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process > of dispute resolution? > I has already been stated twice or thrice in this thread that general discussion of "dispute resolution" itself would be within the scope of the "dispute resolution" mailing list. Several have voiced support for the use of this list for any range of legitimate dispute resolution issues --large and small. AGK gave a very straightforward rebuttal to the idea that a list need be confined in accord to narrow frameworks. In any case it does not make too much sense to prejudice a concept with loaded questions about its scope before it has even been tested in the field. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
Fred Bauder wrote: >> AGK wrote: >> Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? >>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute >>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution >>> (and of >>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one >>> party to >>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on >>> the >>> list. >>> >>> >>> >> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute >> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? >> >> Charles >> >> > > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss > dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. > This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the > arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership. > I see Risker has already asked for a definition of the purpose of such a list. My feeling so far is that this is all rather [[Blind men and an elephant]]: different people come up with different aspects of dispute resolution they think could usefully be discussed on a list. Such as BLP (Fred) or any other policy matters, or overview of current activity (the Signpost already does this for Arbitration). You would undoubtedly get advocacy; would you not get canvassing? Discussion of intractable edit wars? What is and is not pseudoscience? Second-guessing appeals and clarifications? Speculation about matters in mediation? If it descends to "X is a disruptive editor so something should be done" one can expect some fairly primitive knockabout. In my view, the problem needing a solution is to get people with an onsite dispute to use the lower tiers of dispute resolution correctly. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo : > My goal is total and complete synergy. Synergy is when something is greater than the sum of its parts. That is not a goal, it is a means of achieving a goal. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo > On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > > > In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic > > frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, > > a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list. > > > > I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred? > > -Stevertigo > It's on the arbcom-L private mailing list, I suspect, Steve. A link won't be possible, sorry. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 7:38 AM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic > frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, > a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list. > I don't remember that Jimbo email. Can you give us a link, Fred? -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> >>> AGK wrote: > Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and > what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? > My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list. >>> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute >>> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? >>> >>> Charles >>> > on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: >> >> The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to >> discuss >> dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. >> This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the >> arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership. >> > Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the > process > of dispute resolution? > > Marc > In general, and whenever an issue arises. For example, one topic frequently discussed on the other lists is Biographies of living persons, a policy which originated with Jimbo via the arbcom list. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
>> AGK wrote: Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? >>> >>> >>> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute >>> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution >>> (and of >>> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one >>> party to >>> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on >>> the >>> list. >>> >>> >> No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute >> resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? >> >> Charles >> on 6/27/09 10:10 AM, Fred Bauder at fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: > > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss > dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. > This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the > arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership. > Would you be a bit more specific, Fred; do you mean discussing the process of dispute resolution? Marc ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> AGK wrote: >>> Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and >>> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? >>> >> >> >> My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute >> resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution >> (and of >> ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one >> party to >> a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on >> the >> list. >> >> > No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute > resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? > > Charles > The idea is to have a mailing list for the general membership to discuss dispute resolution, including information about ongoing controversies. This sort of discussion already occurs on the functionaries and the arbitrators list. This list would not have a restricted membership. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> > No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the > dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? A mailing list need not have a specific goal (and indeed it rarely does); rather, it is simply a forum for discussion of a given topic - which is often quite loosely defined. Consider this: which problem is WikiEN-l trying to solve? It's not; the list exists simply as a place for collaboration and discussion that would not be handled as well on-wiki. As a rule of thumb, I prefer on-wiki discussions for consensus-building, but I *do* think this list is a good idea - if for no other reason but to see how well it works. On another note: to safeguard against having this list sit uselessly if we end up discovering we don't want to use it, we could agree to consider in, say, three months whether the list ought to be closed down or not. We already have quite enough lists that are barely (or not) used. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
AGK wrote: >> Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and >> what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? >> > > > My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute > resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of > ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to > a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the > list. > > No, but don't you think it might be a hindrance to getting the dispute resolved? Which precise problem are we trying to solve here? Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> > Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and > what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? My understanding is that the list would not be a forum for dispute resolution, but rather a forum for discussion of dispute resolution (and of ongoing disputes on enwiki) - and so the problems posed by only one party to a disagreement subscribing wouldn't be a hinderance to operations on the list. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Sat, Jun 27, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Risker wrote: > No, it was not intended that way, Steve. I do know that Brion has a very > long job queue, and mailing lists haven't been his top priority for a long > time. If the WMF powers that be consider it a priority, then it will move up > in his list; if not, then you may be in for quite a wait. > > Risker > I believe mailing lists are handled by cary actually, but it doesn't matter if anyone doesn't have time because you just log it in bugzilla and when someone has time they will do it. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
No, it was not intended that way, Steve. I do know that Brion has a very long job queue, and mailing lists haven't been his top priority for a long time. If the WMF powers that be consider it a priority, then it will move up in his list; if not, then you may be in for quite a wait. Risker 2009/6/27 stevertigo > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third > > party. > > > > Well, I took his meaning to be something like "go Google yourself," albeit > put in very nice terms. > > > > Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes. > > > > Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome! > > -Stevertigo > ___ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third > party. > Well, I took his meaning to be something like "go Google yourself," albeit put in very nice terms. > Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes. > Your further insights on this matter would be most welcome! -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : >> It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would >> not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it. > > That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. > I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble > across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if > people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them? > I think one goal might be to provide a menu which empowered people to both avoid drama and engage in substantive conversations of interest. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > >> 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : >> > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It >> would >> > not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to >> it. >> >> That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. >> I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble >> across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if >> people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them? > > > I don't see Fred's ideas or insights as being particularly in conflict > with > the idea I proposed. > In fact, as I proposed it, I didn't get into any particular details. I > simply assumed that if people > agreed on the general scope, they could also agree on the scope such a > list > might have. > > Indeed, someone who might be interested in getting help for a particular > edit conflict and might want to drop a note to the mailing list might > like > not getting their head bitten off by someone on this one. > > -Stevertigo > Yes, we might develop an ability to address petty disputes. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/27 stevertigo > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder >> wrote: >> >> > > I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this - >> > > >> > > One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute >> resolution >> > > (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for >> > > those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real >> > > life time constraints. >> > > >> > > Two, discussion. >> > > >> > > Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I >> > > think some people would be more interested in just announcements. >> I >> > > would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the >> > > option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their >> > > bandwidth... >> > >> > I think this is a good refinement of the idea. >> > >> >> I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, >> George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be >> populated >> either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe >> not >> a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list >> first >> though. >> >> -Stevertigo >> ___ >> > > Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing > list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups > and > see how many people sign up? > > Risker > It is Wikimedia business. It would not be appropriate to involve a third party. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 7:20 PM, Risker wrote: > > Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing > list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups > and > see how many people sign up? > > Risker, from experience, I know what you say to be not true. I remember Brion starting several language mailing lists in about 10 minutes with nothing more than a casual request on intlwiki-l. Even you and Thomas who have expressed several critical concerns and questions, do not outright state your opposition to such a lists' creation. If you are receiving transmissions that indiate other concerns, please list those concerns along with their sources here, so we can deal with those. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder > wrote: > > > > I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this - > > > > > > One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution > > > (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for > > > those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real > > > life time constraints. > > > > > > Two, discussion. > > > > > > Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I > > > think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I > > > would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the > > > option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their > > > bandwidth... > > > > I think this is a good refinement of the idea. > > > > I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, > George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated > either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not > a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first > though. > > -Stevertigo > ___ > Stevertigo, from experience I know it takes some time to set up a mailing list (we're talking weeks, not days). Why not start one on Google groups and see how many people sign up? Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Fred Bauder wrote: > > I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this - > > > > One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution > > (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for > > those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real > > life time constraints. > > > > Two, discussion. > > > > Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I > > think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I > > would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the > > option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their > > bandwidth... > > I think this is a good refinement of the idea. > I personally don't understand the "announce" format or its usefulness, George, but I have no objection. I don't know now it would be populated either, as it would require DR to get its ducks in a row overall. Maybe not a bad thing, actually, but let's deal with the main discussion list first though. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > > Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?" > > Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and > stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those. > My arguments tend to be more rational than "logical." > Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" > Every > > edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was > 5.7 > > years ago. > > You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a > > "convention" is not a "system." > > I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit > the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't > see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't > explained how your system would be better than the current one (which > is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR). > Not all "conflicts" rise to the level of "wars." So not all edit conflicts are "edit wars." The latter term has implications that transcend most "conflicts between editors" or "editorial conflicts." The technical usage of "edit conflict" to mean a state wherein a session has been interrupted by changes by another user, in a certain way usurps the canonical (common English) usage of the word "conflict" for a technical purpose. And even in technical context, its a bit of an outdated misnomer: * Outdated, because since section editing was implemented five years ago, they rarely happen. * Misnomer, because those "conflicts" are technical and not "edit"-orial, and anyway are not so much "conflicts" as they are "interrupts." (Note that other wiki software have these handled via simple usage of session lockouts. Not to say that such would work for us, though). If its got a simple technical solution, its probably not the "conflict" we are talking about. This should correct not just your terminology, but our general conventional misuse which I too once or twice have been a party to. Its been a while since Ive had an "edit interrupt" myself. Edit conflicts (not "wars") however occur hourly. :-) -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : > > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would > > not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it. > > That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. > I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble > across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if > people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them? I don't see Fred's ideas or insights as being particularly in conflict with the idea I proposed. In fact, as I proposed it, I didn't get into any particular details. I simply assumed that if people agreed on the general scope, they could also agree on the scope such a list might have. Indeed, someone who might be interested in getting help for a particular edit conflict and might want to drop a note to the mailing list might like not getting their head bitten off by someone on this one. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > > For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do > > things because they are experimental or synergistic. > > Ok, you may not want to solve a problem, but presumably you want to > achieve something. What is your goal? My goal is total and complete synergy. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo : > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >>> You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and >>> there >>> we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than >>> appliances. >> That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" >> and "fix". > Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?" Yes. A logical argument generally starts by defining some terms and stating a few axioms and following logical implications from those. > Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every > edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 > years ago. > You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a > "convention" is not a "system." I'm guessing you don't mean "edit conflict" as in when two people edit the same page at the same time? You mean "edit *war*", yes? I don't see why an old system is necessarily a bad one and you haven't explained how your system would be better than the current one (which is far more than just conventions, we have very clear policy on DR). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo : > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Risker wrote: > >> It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended >> to solve. >> > > Great comments, Risker. > > For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do > things because they are experimental or synergistic. Ok, you may not want to solve a problem, but presumably you want to achieve something. What is your goal? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 Fred Bauder : > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would > not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it. That's a different idea to the one I believe was originally proposed. I don't really object to your idea. I find it all too easy to stumble across drama as it is, so I'm not sure I see the benefit, but if people want to know where to go for the best drama, why not tell them? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> 2009/6/27 stevertigo > >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton > >wrote: >> >> > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >> > >> >> >> > > You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" >> and >> > there >> > > we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than >> > appliances. >> > > :-) >> > >> > That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of >> "broke" >> > and "fix". >> >> >> Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?" >> >> Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" >> Every >> edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was >> 5.7 >> years ago. >> You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a >> "convention" is not a "system." >> >> -Stevertigo >> > > It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be > intended > to solve. > > Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss > content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we > hear > at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to > content. > > Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than > current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to > hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the > person(s) > whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to > join the mailing list? > > Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what > happens when only one party joins the mailing list? > > Just some thoughts. > > Risker > It would allow subscribers to keep track of what is going on. It would not try to engage in dispute resolution but discuss it and point to it. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Risker wrote: > It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended > to solve. > Great comments, Risker. For one, we don't always do things to "solve problems" - sometimes we do things because they are experimental or synergistic. Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss > content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear > at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to > content. > Excellent point. In a certain way, it seems that there must be some limitation upon what depth content disputes may be discussed on list. In another respect, a certain integration between talk page and list discussion may help to 1) abstract conflicts from being localized to unseen talk pages, and 2) bring abstract general-interest attention to specific talk pages. In reality, this is the way wikien-l used to work, before it got all abstractified and focused exclusively on talking about what newspapers are saying about us. Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than > current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to > hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) > whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to > join the mailing list? > Indeed, the list should not replace anything else. Rather it should give people an eagle-eye view of disputes, and from this vantage this offers a certain extra dimension to using RFC's, etc. Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what > happens when only one party joins the mailing list? > Very good point. Again, as far as specific conflicts go, it would be more of an announce list. As far as general discussion goes, well this aspect at least to my mind is quite necessary, as general discussion on talk pages is not useful to anyone. -Stevertigo ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
2009/6/27 stevertigo > On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:23 PM, Thomas Dalton >wrote: > > > 2009/6/27 stevertigo : > > > > > > > You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and > > there > > > we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than > > appliances. > > > :-) > > > > That's not an axiom, it is a consequence of the definitions of "broke" > > and "fix". > > > Hm. So you are saying that "definitions have consequences?" > > Speaking of definitions: You also previously used the term "problem:" Every > edit conflict is a "problem" and DR itself is almost the same as it was 5.7 > years ago. > You also used the term "current system:" It is my understanding that a > "convention" is not a "system." > > -Stevertigo > It's a bit unclear what problem this list (these lists?) would be intended to solve. Content disputes? is there a reason why we would want people to discuss content disputes off-wiki? Seems to me one of the main allegations we hear at the Arbitration Committee is excess off-wiki communication related to content. Behaviour disputes? How will a mailing list address these better than current processes? (Note, I'm not a big fan of RFCs, but I would like to hear a rationale about why mailing lists are better.) What if the person(s) whose behaviour is the subject of the mailing list thread chooses not to join the mailing list? Interpersonal disputes? Again, how is a mailing list better? and what happens when only one party joins the mailing list? Just some thoughts. Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] Dispute resolution mailing list
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:17 PM, stevertigo wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 5:08 PM, Thomas Dalton >> wrote: >> >>> 2009/6/27 stevertigo : >>> >> >> >>> > Thomas, the distinctions you present -- that dispute resolution has >>> public >>> > and private dimensions, and that these different dimensions of >>> dispute >>> > resolution require different technological formats -- is unknown to >>> me. >>> Is >>> > there policy in which the necessity for these distinctions is >>> outlined? >>> >>> I never said it was necessary, I just said that's the way it is. >>> Unless you can describe a problem with a current system, I see no >>> reason to change it. >>> >> >> You could start a thread called "if it ain't broke don't fix it" and >> there >> we can debate whether the axiom applies to anything other than >> appliances. >> :-) > > I would actually suggest two lists, if we could do this - > > One, an announce-only list which summarized ongoing dispute resolution > (arbcom cases, RFCs, community discussions of note elsewhere) for > those who find following all the threads on-wiki daunting with real > life time constraints. > > Two, discussion. > > Perhaps one list, but a regular posting of the announcements, but I > think some people would be more interested in just announcements. I > would participate in both, but I think that giving some people the > option to just get the announcements is more respectful of their > bandwidth... > > > -- > -george william herbert > george.herb...@gmail.com > I think this is a good refinement of the idea. Fred ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
