User:Vecrumba/Presentation of evidence

WORK IN PROGRESS, DO NOT EDIT

 * Let's use something else as an example, namely Holodomor. We can agree that it is a poster child for an article where two individuals can read the same exact source and come away with editorial conclusions that are 180 degrees from each other heading off to infinity in opposite directions. And so it is with "evidence" and the entire manner in which these proceedings are structured. Assume something is not "cut and dried" (some single act which so grossly violates WP policy that it cannot be subject to interpretation). Let's follow along:
 * Based on diffs, diffs encouraged and required . Diffs are quotes out of context. Let's not pretend they are anything else. Poster children for the phrase "cherry picked."
 * Context to diffs quotes out of context is provided by complainant  This is a two part narrative:
 * The assemblage and chronology of events
 * The interpretation of said assemblage and chronology of events
 * Complainant's context is interpretive  An interpretation is a version or view of facts, it is not factual, it is not in any way demonstrated to be true, Q.E.D., beyond all doubt.
 * So, what does that make a Request for Arbitration? We all present evidence as if it's
 * Q.E.D. (that would be black and white)
 * when we're really after a:
 * conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (that would be shades of gray)
 * where we view our own role through rose coloured glasses.
 * So, what is the answer? I would suggest the following:
 * Require pointers to  conversation threads , not to diffs out of context.
 * Complainant  summarizes  their complaint and conclusion succinctly, not peppered with a dozen diffs.
 *  Interpretation  is left to admins who read through the conversation threads and come to their own conclusions as regards the complainant's interpretation.
 * Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention.
 * So, what is the answer? I would suggest the following:
 * Require pointers to  conversation threads , not to diffs out of context.
 * Complainant  summarizes  their complaint and conclusion succinctly, not peppered with a dozen diffs.
 *  Interpretation  is left to admins who read through the conversation threads and come to their own conclusions as regards the complainant's interpretation.
 * Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention.
 * Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention.
 * Yes, this fundamentally changes the way we conduct these proceedings, but we've already proven the current way doesn't work. This is not necessarily the answer across all of Wikipedia, but it might work better than the current "arrangement" where there is a known community of editors in contention.