Thu 14th July 2011, 10:05pm
QUOTE(LessHorrid vanU @ Thu 14th July 2011, 5:47pm)
Nearly everybody really believes that what they do is for the best, even when it does not quite accord with WP policies and practices, and some even feel they should have a) special dispensation, and, b) tokens of gratitude. This is the reason why "discussions" are mostly cases of various parties stating their stance, confirming viewpoints that support their own and criticizing those that are not - there is rarely any cases of people being persuaded one way or another.
Right. Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that editorial decisions be made by genuine consensus, with anything less than complete agreement being undesirable, even if occasionally necessary.
But facilitating consensus process is a skill, and that process takes time, famously it requires very lengthy discussion -- though with high skill, it can sometimes be quick. Wikipedia, however, doesn't value this skill, and, my observation, actually sanctions it.
The Arbitration Committee does not seek to find the common denominator among those who come before it, the places where they can agree, building on that; rather, it typically decides which parties are right and which are wrong. Instead of building process that allows complete examination of issues, one at a time, which would require many, many subdiscussions, with consensus conclusions, it mashes it all together.
So the AC is part of the problem. Big surprise! Elected by supermajority, which is guaranteed to select, too often, for iincompetence as to dispute resolution, it elects majority-pleasers.