Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any messages, just add your name to this page.
Background: Let's start with brief overview of the DR ecosystem. Most disputes begin at an article talk page, and many are settled there. Policy specific questions are typically raised at a noticeboard, such as WP:BLPN (biographies of living persons), WP:RSN (reliable sources), WP:ORN (original research), WP:FRINGE (alternative beliefs/pseudoscience), WP:CP or WP:NFCR or WP:MCQ (copyright), WP:PM (mergers), WP:RM (page moves), WP:ELN (external links), WP:NN (notability), WP:ANI (administrator's incidents), or WP:AN3 (edit warring). User conduct issues go through Wikiquette noticeboard while more serious situations warrant an WP:RFC/U. Small content disputes can start with the lightweight Third opinion process; more substantial disputes wind up at the Dispute resolution noticeboard; and even more intractable issues arrive at the Mediation Committee. Some complex questions can be resolved with an WP:RFC. Last, WP:ARBCOM often needs to step in and levy a decision. An obvious observation here that there are a lot of places where dispute resolution happens. Some of them are more extensive, better known, or more effective than others.
Research: One of the first steps in improving our DR processes has been getting good data about DR. This has been spearheaded by Steven Zhang whose 2012 Community Fellowship is focused on understanding and improving DR on Wikipedia. One of the key purposes of this newsletter will be to present the best research and ideas we have about which options are working and what we as a community might do about improving the rest of them.
April survey results: In April 2012 Steven Zhang conducted a dispute resolution survey. Among its findings, here were some highlights:
- Over half of all respondents (and 80% of females) were older than 40.
- 94% had requested assistance from a dispute resolution forum at some point, and were generally unhappy with their experiences in dispute resolution – only one in five were satisfied – however despite this 62% had participated in dispute resolution within the last year.
- Requests for Comment is the most used dispute resolution forum, with
- Opinions of dispute resolution were overall relatively negative - Arbitration was rated as the best dispute resolution forum by respondents – with one in three respondents rating it as good or better. In contrast, Wikiquette assistance was rated the worst – only 1 in 12 rated it as satisfactory.
- Dispute resolution volunteers do so because they felt the process was critical to Wikipedia functioning, liked helping people or as payback for previous assistance.
- Some respondents haven’t volunteered due to the unpleasantness of disputes, the prolonged nature of dispute resolution, or due to poor past experiences or a lack of knowledge in resolving disputes. *When asked about their personal experiences with dispute resolution, positive aspects were that their dispute was resolved, the examples set by volunteers and the positive behavior of their fellow participants, while negative aspects included the time it takes to resolve a dispute, and the potential for the the processes to become unfair - many citing the source of this unfairness as as administrators that became involved in the process.
- The main problems given for dispute resolution are its complexity, its inaccessibility, and that there are too many resolution processes and not enough volunteers. Respondents want stricter action taken against problematic editors, a simplified, more accessible process where closure can be bought to a dispute quickly.
Activity analysis: The following table summarizes activity in several DR forums for the month of May 2012.
| Forum | disputes | participants | volunteers | Average first response | Average resolution | Success rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Third opinion | 31 | Not assessed | N/A | 25 hours | N/A | 52% |
| Dispute resolution noticeboard | 42 | 207 | 25 | 16.6 hours (21.4% never looked at) | 8.6 days | 47.61% |
| Mediation Cabal | 4 | 17 | 5 | N/A | 28 days | 100% |
| Formal Mediation | 7 | 25 | 4 | N/A | 15 days | 0% |
| Wikiquette assistance | 17 | 67 | Not assessed | 5.3 hours | 45.5 hours | 21.4% |
| Requests for comment | 15 | 339 (212 from one RFC) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Of note is that the most active forum of those analyzed was the still relatively new Dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). Also interesting is that WQA was often the fastest place to yield a response; however, the survey found WQA rarely resulted in satisfactory resolution.
A follow-up analysis in August 2012 compared the DRN to its May data:
| Result for May | Goals for August | Results for August | Results for August % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Avg. Response Time | 16 hrs 36 mins | <10 hrs | 5h 29 min | 67% reduction in response time |
| # of active volunteers | 25 - 1 to 12 ratio with 207 participants (average 1.47 per thread) | 30+ | 20 - 1 to 8.8 out of 177 total editors (average 2.85 per thread) | 20% reduction in volunteers |
| Timeframe thread open | 8.6 days | 5 - 7 days | 2d 10 hr - 3 d 11 hr for disputes that were addressed | 60% reduction in discussion time |
| Success rate | 47.61% | 70%+ | 64.29% | 16.6% increase in success |
The results at DRN showed some encouraging stats - a reduction of 67% to first response times, 60% reduction in discussion times, 25% reduction in thread size, an average of 2.85 volunteers to a thread up from 1.5 and a success rate of over 64%. The amount of volunteers decreased by 20%; however, its common for volunteers at DRN to come and go.
The WQA close proposal is still receiving comments. Initial response was generally sympathetic to concerns about WQA's ineffectiveness, but there was widespread backlash against routeing all WQA disputes to AN/I. The number one complaint about WQA was that it just doesn't work, and further that it dilutes the DR pipeline and confuses editors with too many options. Several editors noted that too much blaming goes on there, sometimes even increasing the drama. A common point was that without the admin teeth of AN/I, WQA does little to discourage our most uncivil editors. Opponents to the close noted that WQA at least gets the mess of conduct disputes off of article talk pages and is a lighterweight alternative to RFC/U. Also mentioned was that the threat of AN/I delivered at WQA was sometimes enough. Consensus seemed to form around third opinions (3O) as a suitable replacement for WQA given our current options.
For Discussion: A Requests for comment will be opened soon to discuss the future of dispute resolution. In the meantime, is the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard effective? Should we close or reroute it to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? Please share your views...
See Also: This week's Signpost opinion piece on dispute resolution, by Steven Zhang.
--The Olive Branch 23:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)