User:HG1/Workshop/IPScorecard

Asked for comments and got helpful feedback:
 * I think listing people by sides is probably a bad idea; even asking people to sign themselves up under column A or column B is tricky, and picking sides for them even more so. It's not so much that there are sides, but that some people on each side find it difficult to work well with others in this system. Thatcher 04:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your invitation! To be honest, your approach is quite different from the approach I favor. For one, I have strong personal objections against labelling people - partly because I come from a country that has done that with perfection; people in my country started by labelling people by their race, and then ended up killing 6 million.


 * But let's remain in the present. I really would like us to focus on our articles, rather than on our personal differences. I believe this is not only only important for Wikipedia, I also would like to think that - especially for areas like I-P and SL - we can be a model case for good cooperation. I happen to work in a company where Palestinians and Israelis work well together (one Jewish coworker of mine told me a couple years ago that a Palestinian was her best manager), and this fills me with immense gratitude; it is one of the main reasons why I enjoy coming to work here. I would like Wikipedia to be such a place, too. A place where editors feel at home and welcome, and just respected as people, regardless of their ethnicity or other affiliations. A place where editors work together, and only see their problems as enemies. This won't happen all the time, but the more often it happens, the better. It is a long learning curve, even for someone like me, who came here over a year ago with this ideal. Look at how I changed even in the last month: WT:SLR#Clarification of what 1RR means to us.


 * For all this, my approach with WP:SLR was to make sure members include editors from both sides, and then always let members decide in consensus. This is only possible because we had, right from the start, two members from opposing camps who both were willing to cooperate for the sake of Wikipedia. I would therefore urge you to seek membership of at least one cooperative member for each side who are respected in their camps. — Sebastian 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

(Scorecard idea)
If we are seeking to stop the battling and the gaming over Israeli-Palestinian articles, it helps to have a sense of the players. For instance, a heated discussion can be hard to follow, facilitate or mediate, without knowing the disputant's POV. Furthermore, it may be counter-productive to claim a consensus without knowing that both "sides" are represented. In other words, it is helpful for peacemakers to know the disputants. And you can't tell the players without a scorecard. So, here's an idea for a scorecard.

The easy part: Describe the players/contestants, those actively involved in editing, through self-identifications.

The hard part: Might there be an appropriate way to show how an editor or admin is perceived by others? On the one hand, it's important to encourage everyone to assume good faith. So, presumably we want to avoid prompting folks to assume bad faith. It may be problematic to describe a user as leaning strongly toward a POV if they self-identify as uninvolved/non-partisan. On the other hand, if repeated claims against a person have been lodged in official WP proceedings, might it be appropriate to compile such claims? (Plus, some users might want to know how they are perceived. Nevertheless, this page would not seek to resolved disputed perceptions of a user's biases.) Therefore, please use the Talk page to discuss the merits of outsider characterizations of user points-of-view. Thank you.

Self-identified users

 * YourUserName, I am a Zionist

How do others see you?

 * SomebodyElse, claimed to have taken the Israeli side

Self-identified users

 * YourUserName, I support the PLO

How do others see you?

 * SomebodyElse is claimed to have taken the Palestinian side

Self-identified users

 * HG, strives to be perceived as neutral in editing and in Talk

Questions for the Talk page

 * 1) Would this kind of scorecard be useful?
 * 2) Can we assume good faith and, nonetheless, describe how others see you?