Arbitrator not interested in correctnes (sic) of Wikipedia Options

[Encyclopedist]

This edit

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders%2C_decorations%2C_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom&action=historysubmit&diff=440398263&oldid=436820264]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orders%2C_decorations%2C_and_medals_of_the_United_Kingdom&action=historysubmit&diff=440398263&oldid=436820264
[/url]

appeared to me yesterday, while I was aware that Cas Liber, an arbitrator, was currently online.

So I emailed him to point out that whereas John Lennon may have returned his MBE insignia, it is not possible to resign from membership of the Order of the British Empire; it is granted by the monarch, and can only be removed by the monarch. So sending back the insignia is an insufficient act of "resignation".

However, rather than making Wikipedia factually correct, which is arguably the purpose of its editors, Cas Liber has done nothing to correct the error. Whereas WP:RBI may be powerful, why on earth can an Arb fail to take the point to keep Wikipedia correct?


It suggests to me that Arbs are not interested in WP's content in the slightest, and are more interested in their nugatory and largely irreleevant, but certainly discredited, politics. Kill them all; they are not fit for purpose.

[Detective]

It suggests to me that Arbs are not interested in WP's content in the slightest, and are more interested in their nugatory and largely irreleevant, but certainly discredited, politics.

Encyclopedist, you know the rules as well as anyone here. ArbCom is not concerned with content issues, only the resolution of disputes. An arbitrator who was worried about the correctness of an article would not be doing his job properly. You and I may say that that's crazy Wikilawyering, but that's how the system works. No doubt there should be some sort of editorial board to ensure that articles are as accurate as possible. No doubt that will never ever happen.

[Kelly Martin]

ArbCom is not concerned with content issues, only the resolution of disputes. An arbitrator who was worried about the correctness of an article would not be doing his job properly. You and I may say that that's crazy Wikilawyering, but that's how the system works.

I agree that's how the system is, but it's not how the system works. Quite clearly the system does not work.

The problem is that the ArbCom has lost sight of the site's mission. The overriding concern at all times should be "How can we best facilitate the authoring of an accurate, reliable encyclopedia?" Clearly the correctness of articles is inherently a factor in every dispute. The ArbCom's decision to ignore this factor simply makes clear that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but instead a social networking site, and its paramount goal is to amass participants, without regard to whether those participants actually further the site's purported purpose.

Simply put, nobody (at least nobody in charge) actually gives a damn about the encyclopedia.

[Abd]

ArbCom is not concerned with content issues, only the resolution of disputes. An arbitrator who was worried about the correctness of an article would not be doing his job properly. You and I may say that that's crazy Wikilawyering, but that's how the system works.

I agree that's how the system is, but it's not how the system works. Quite clearly the system does not work.

Rule Number One is, in fact, deprecated. But that Rule allows the cabal to do whatever they want, justifying it by IAR. (That's how WMC justified banning me from cold fusion, by the way. When asked why he'd done it, he pointed to a combination of IAR and "don't be a dick." I.e., he was banning me because he believed that doing so would benefit the project, by preventing a dick from editing an article, at least that's a charitable interpretation.)

So the cabal will not permit it to be stated that IAR is deprecated. The true fundamental rule is Rule 0. JzG tried to get that essay deleted, but User:Abd/Rule 0 is now User:Tothwolf/rescued essays/Rule 0. Thanks, Tothwolf.

The problem is that the ArbCom has lost sight of the site's mission. The overriding concern at all times should be "How can we best facilitate the authoring of an accurate, reliable encyclopedia?" Clearly the correctness of articles is inherently a factor in every dispute. The ArbCom's decision to ignore this factor simply makes clear that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but instead a social networking site, and its paramount goal is to amass participants, without regard to whether those participants actually further the site's purported purpose.

Simply put, nobody (at least nobody in charge) actually gives a damn about the encyclopedia.

Let's say that the ultimate goal has been lost in confusion over secondary goals. ArbComm is operating on a theory that the project will be improved if behavioral guidelines are followed. That's true, if the behavioral guidelines are clear, and reliably enforced. Neither condition holds, unfortunately, and ArbComm has not been willing to address the problems, because ArbComm is elected from the core, mostly by the core, and thus Arbcomm is simply reproducing core problems. To address those problems would take independent structure, and that is exactly one of the things that ArbComm has attempted to interdict.

Big surprise, ArbComm is preserving the status quo, the system that elected it and that gave it power.

Change from inside a system like this is rare. I do know that at least one arbitrator was elected, and quite possibly more, with a personal belief that they would change the system, or end up banned. All signs indicate that they found it impossible, the majority was too entrenched. So far, though, no arbitrator, excepting Kelly, has been willing to seriously blow the whistle. I know that one retired because he received real-world, in-person threats, and he concluded that the risk to himself and his family wasn't worth it.

To handle this problem, distributed power would be necessary, it can't be a single hero who stands out, or else he or she could be dead meat. Does ArbComm realize how dark the dark side is? I'd expect that to be pretty uncomfortable! Instead, most arbitrators would deny it, and sail on, undisturbed, unless they were to actually do something that threatens those dark forces.