The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Arbitrator not interested in correctnes (sic) of Wikipedia
Encyclopedist
post Thu 21st July 2011, 12:00am
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 54
Joined: Thu 13th Nov 2008, 12:11am
Member No.: 8,944



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.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
RMHED
post Thu 21st July 2011, 12:10am
Post #2


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 935
Joined: Fri 8th May 2009, 8:48pm
Member No.: 11,716

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Thu 21st July 2011, 1:00am) *


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".



I had exactly the same problem with Book of the Month Club, I tried to resign from it but they just kept on sending those books.

I too, blame Cas Liber. angry.gif .
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 21st July 2011, 12:19am
Post #3


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Wed 20th July 2011, 8:00pm) *

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

So I emailed him [...] 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? [...] Kill them all; they are not fit for purpose.
OMG, an arbitrator failed to respond to an email? What does he think he is, a volunteer? He should be available for instant response 24/7, or else merely killing him would be way too kind.

I know what we should do. Heh! We should make him look at the correction by an anonymous IP editor and worry about whether that's a banned editor or not. The difficult question, should just the specific IP be blocked, or a massive range or set of ranges?

These difficult choices are what we pay him for.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
SpiderAndWeb
post Thu 21st July 2011, 2:57am
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 56
Joined: Tue 28th Jun 2011, 5:02pm
Member No.: 58,319



There's a lot I hold against the arbitrators, but failure to personally wade into what looks like incredibly WP:LAME semantic bickering is not one of them.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Thu 21st July 2011, 1:12pm
Post #5


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Thu 21st July 2011, 1:00am) *

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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Kelly Martin
post Thu 21st July 2011, 1:56pm
Post #6


Bring back the guttersnipes!
********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 3,270
Joined: Sun 22nd Jun 2008, 4:41am
From: EN61bw
Member No.: 6,696



QUOTE(Detective @ Thu 21st July 2011, 8:12am) *
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Abd
post Thu 21st July 2011, 2:53pm
Post #7


Postmaster
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,915
Joined: Tue 18th Nov 2008, 10:52pm
From: Northampton, MA, USA
Member No.: 9,019

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 21st July 2011, 9:56am) *

QUOTE(Detective @ Thu 21st July 2011, 8:12am) *
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.
QUOTE
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.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
A Horse With No Name
post Thu 21st July 2011, 5:18pm
Post #8


I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined: Mon 26th Jan 2009, 1:54pm
Member No.: 9,985



QUOTE(Encyclopedist @ Wed 20th July 2011, 8:00pm) *
Cas Liber has done nothing to correct the error.


Well, the next time you have tea with Cas Liber, take a cue from this video and ask him how many lumps of sugar he wants.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
thekohser
post Thu 21st July 2011, 5:32pm
Post #9


Member
*********

Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,274
Joined: Thu 1st Feb 2007, 10:21pm
Member No.: 911



I like the irony of the word "correctnes" in the title of this thread.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 7 14, 1:40pm