Wikipedia talk:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter

Mediation Cabal

I think it's noteworthy the Mediation Cabal achieved a 100% success rate in the May 2012 analysis. Presumably, this reflects the high quality of volunteers MedCab attracted, who will hopefully continue to offer their services through the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. PhilKnight (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion on the formal mediation statistics are well-known, but I will reiterate that the statement that RFM had a "0% success rate" is flawed. I'm disappointed you have included that statement in this newsletter, after their use in a Wikimania talk led to much confusion about the value of the formal mediation process. Please remember that statistics have limited usefulness, and do not give an exact impression of the value of a process.
For instance, no arbitration case has recently been opened. Does that mean the arbitration process success rate is 0%? Or perhaps 100%...? In the same way, quantifying the success of formal mediation is very difficult because of the low throughput of the process. The recent attempts to do so are deeply misleading. AGK [•] 13:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anthony. The results are what they are. While it is true that formal mediation is used less (as noted in the summary of survey results) omitting the results of the analysis in May would not be appropriate, in my opinion. It's not my mission to make any process look bad, but to address any problems that I see, and work on fixing them (I think we are on the right track with the proposed MedCom changes). It actually turned out that the last successful MedCom case (before May) was closed in September last year. The stats bring to light problems, it's not there to point blame. (Re:ArbCom, the success rate would be N/A - no cases means nothing to assess). Szhang (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have fallen into the age-old trap of failing to place your statistics in context, as with "100% of those surveyed liked or loved this product" when six people were surveyed. Your stats create a false problem, rather than draw attention to a real issue with the running of the encyclopedia. AGK [•] 08:29, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resoution in general

My own experiences with wiki, however limited and perhaps extreme, might provide a worthwhile perspective on DR at wiki. They at the very least cover nearly the entire gamut of DR mechanisms available. First, the shear number available for ostensibly aggrieved editors to shop is alarming though perhaps not surprising for something the size of wiki. More importantly, the different rules and makeup of each and every is something which provides a sizable advantage to the party with greater inside familiarity in any kind of dispute. This naturally creates a distinction and discrepancy between the haves vs. have-nots, since the sure-fire way to "win" anything when the decision mechanism is "consensus" is inherent to membership in an aristocracy built via quid pro quo. This further removes the discussion from the technical merits of any matter into the pointless (to the outside) realm of petty politics. This is probably reflected in the survey which shows hardly any difference between widely diverging DR processes, given the depth/level at which the pervasive and influential political mechanism works.

That said, this doesn't mean reform is futile, only that it needs to be targeted to how everything actually works instead of how it's perhaps assumed to work. If the politics is a given, and goal is still quality content, many things can be done in practice to mitigate the influence of the former while still attaining the latter. For example, one idea could be have-nots instructed or otherwise given more effective tools to use against wikicrats, couple of which are detailed in my post here. But more importantly, the simple acknowledgement by those disillusioned by the second of the chasm between content editors in the vast long tail at wiki, and an incestuous self-important inner circle would go a long way. IOW, DR at wiki needs to remember who it's working for and towards, and it's certainly not those who've seemingly made a career of building a bureaucracy. Agent00f (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear someone is addressing the dispute resolution crisis. It's the main reason I have been largely inactive in recent years.

During the first 3 or 4 years I was at Wikipedia, I was considered one of the three top experts on NPOV and was one of the most trusted Wikipedians. (I was the first elected "bureaucrat".)

Later, a sustained campaign to subvert neutrality was made, with me as a primary target. I was vilified en masse as 'tendentious', although out of 30,000 edits not one was ever shown to be in violation of NPOV policy. Other contributors simply said they were "sick" of having to deal with my unrelenting protests of their NPOV violations. Apparently deciding that the best defense was a good offense, they accused me of what they themselves were doing.

After disproving the first few dozen false charges, I gave up the fight but (like Lance Armstrong with the false doping change) I found that the anti-NPOV side had "truth in numbers".

What we need is a system that exposes false attempts to blacken someone's name and besmirch their reputation. Each NPOV dispute should be settled on objective measures of neutrality. The principle that an article on a controversy should never assert any side as true or correct must be upheld, and never made a case of "ignore all rules" or "85% majority trumps policy".

It's not really hard to make an article neutral: simply say that A says B about C. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kudos for attempting this

I think what you guys are doing here is really good, trying to collect statistics and breaking down the problem analytically to try to gain some insight into it. I would encourage you to continue this process, and support your efforts to make wikipedia more fair and to level the playing field. In essence, Wikipedia basically needs a competent group of respected 'referees'.

To take this analogy further, most modern sports started out as hobbies and/or social clubs. They still managed to have referees. Now, even though sports are multi billion dollar industries, they still try to have a semblance of impartial referees who go by a well considered rule book and try to be fair to all parties. I think of, for example, the referees at the Olympics. There have been issues in some Olympic sports, but over all, people have faith in the refs, because, overall, the refs do a good job.

But we need to realize the huge pressures on Wikipedia. People get payed to edit it. It's usually a top ten google hit on any product, service, organization, political topic, etc. No self respecting PR industry person is going to let it go and just 'become whatever' - that's not why they get payed 6 figures as 'image consultants' to the fortune 100. It is very easy to go and find vanity articles that someone has payed a few hundred bucks to write. It would be beyond naive to think that big corporations and governments arent paying for their own 'vanity' work.

Anyways. Good luck to you in your efforts. Decora (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]