Arbcom needs a shrink, Durova proposes "consulting services of credentialed professional Options

[Doc glasgow]

Durova has just proposed that arbcom requires to hire the "consulting services of credentialed professionals" in "situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues".

Wikipedia's arbitration committee has dealt with a number of situations involving serious harassment, threats, and health issues. These concerns fall far outside the normal scope of encyclopedic disputes; these issues have real world ramifications. The qualifications for which arbitrators are chosen--familiarity with site policies, experience in article dispute resolutions, etc.--have virtually nothing to do with the training and experience requisite for handling problems of this nature. Therefore I offer a solution.

Proposed:

By January 1, 2009 the Committee will either retain the consulting services of credentialed professionals in these areas, or else its members will obtain appropriate fundamental training in these areas from qualified professionals. If the consulting option is selected, normal client-professional confidentiality would apply to the relationship. If the training option is selected, training would be mandatory for all new and returning arbitrators and must be completed by February 15, 2009 or the arbitrator will be placed on the inactive list involuntarily and excluded from internal arbitration communications (mailing list, private wiki, etc.) until training is completed.

The Committee will submit interim reports to the Community via public announcement on the Administrators' Noticeboard on November 1 and December 1. No later than January 1, 2009 the Committee will announce its final action, complete with the names and professional qualifications of the consultants or trainers, and name the formal instruction (if any) that Committee members take. If a Committee member is placed on the inactive list due to failure to complete training, a training needed notation will be added next to that arbitrator's name. The community may request an independent audit for compliance in obtaining and retaining training/consultation, according to reasonable means per the Committee's specification.

See here.

I wonder if she's going to pay for them?

[dogbiscuit]

It is clear to me that many online forums lack the psychological restrains that real life has, and they seem to amplify odd behaviours.

Wikipedia as times seems to do worse, in that although they claim Wikipedia is not therapy, it is clear that there are a selection of high profile problem users who do seem to have become dependent on it, and like many online forums, there is a certain addictiveness to the social networking and game playing.

We've turfed off a small handful people here who seemed to be getting more and more distressed in their interactions here, but it seems we have a small enough community that these actions can be seen and understood. It is a harder problem for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit the Wikipedia brick wall, for when Wikipedia comes across hard problems they simply run and hide, claim not our problem, or quote legislation, or simply try and make fun of concerned people with USENET cries of OMGSAvetheChidrenz!!.

I don't expect Wikipedia to have solutions to all problems, but I do think it has a moral duty to try and find solutions. Sometimes they just need to kick people off, but be able to do it in a way that can be seen to be fair, rather than the arbitrary methods in use today, which can fan the flames - being banned for being a bit of a nuisance can seem rather harsh when compared with the manipulative types who are given free reign.

[Doc glasgow]

It is clear to me that many online forums lack the psychological restrains that real life has, and they seem to amplify odd behaviours.

Wikipedia as times seems to do worse, in that although they claim Wikipedia is not therapy, it is clear that there are a selection of high profile problem users who do seem to have become dependent on it, and like many online forums, there is a certain addictiveness to the social networking and game playing.

We've turfed off a small handful people here who seemed to be getting more and more distressed in their interactions here, but it seems we have a small enough community that these actions can be seen and understood. It is a harder problem for Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, this is where we hit the Wikipedia brick wall, for when Wikipedia comes across hard problems they simply run and hide, claim not our problem, or quote legislation, or simply try and make fun of concerned people with USENET cries of OMGSAvetheChidrenz!!.

I don't expect Wikipedia to have solutions to all problems, but I do think it has a moral duty to try and find solutions. Sometimes they just need to kick people off, but be able to do it in a way that can be seen to be fair, rather than the arbitrary methods in use today, which can fan the flames - being banned for being a bit of a nuisance can seem rather harsh when compared with the manipulative types who are given free reign.

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia. That's it. If you are judged to be helping, you should get banned.

Fairness is nothing to do with it. Wikipedia is not here to give you rights, or make the world a better place - its community is a means to an end, nothing more. If you think wikipedia is treating you badly, if it makes you feel ill, if you think "hey, they get away with, why shouldn't I", then look away, and go away.

Wikipedia is not your right, and if they decide to ban you, tough. There's a whole internet out there.

[dtobias]

Absolutely not. Wikipedia is a project to write an encyclopedia. That's it. If you are judged to be helping, you should get banned.

Ban people for helping the project to create an encyclopedia? Now, that's something some of the regulars here on WR can get behind! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

----------------
Now playing: Rayna - Complete
via FoxyTunes