Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Skilled content warriors

Creative and useful
This is a great idea. It would definitely have helped at Factory farming and WP:V last year. WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. I expect that most of us could rattle off a half dozen pages where it would be helpful. I think hearing from many more "seasoned wikipedians" who are involved with these things routinely would be good. So I'd encourage "canvassing" (admins and others) that otherwise might not comment to encourage them to pipe in: on things to watch out for, ways to make this work, etc. ++Lar: t/c 18:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * this needs more teeth. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 20:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go. --Conti|✉ 21:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but we need to ensure that it is not abused either ala "OMG, an SCW (Skilled Content Warrior), break out teh [sic] BANHAMMER!!!". The pendulum needs to swing more towards removing this long-term problem, but not too far. The new ACR will help to prevent claims of "I was banned as an SCW by admin," but we should proceed with at least a modicum of caution. -- Avi (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

an excellent idea but not for wikipedia
It might work at Citizendium. anyone who like this idea is welcome there. No special requirements are necessary for authors, except to use a real name, and a willingness for the final decisions on articles to be made by subject experts. I like that approach too, and I and a good number of Wikipedians work there as well, both as authors (=our editors) and editors--what they and the rest of the world except Wikipedia call editors. That requires an advanced degree in the subject otr equivalent qualifications, with a CV that can be authenticated.

Frankly, I regard this proposal as a sign that those making it or supporting it really belong elsewhere. No shame in that. this place is for those who actually think open collaboration can work for at least some purposes. The purposes it does not work for--a guaranteed high academic quality information source-- belong to other projects.--just as fan fiction and directory information should go elsewhere.

O'm not sure that anyone who makes or supports it has thought through the problem--who is supposed to be qualified to take the responsibility of selecting who is qualified? The worst of the edit wars are between people who each think they have the better qualifications and the other guy is an amateur. Do we want to fight over that continually? In practice, "High quality editing" is a synonym for editing that I agree with.

"The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" is the foundational principle and the basis of open content. No one has to agree; no one has to work here. DGG (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia was created as a means to an end. You seem to wish the means to be more important than the desired end result. Perhaps you are the one who does not belong here? (Doesn't feel good to be told to leave because of a difference of opinion, does it?) WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, like many of the people here, I am a member of other projects also. among them is citizendium., and at least two other projects involving expert editing. they have their place. and its different from this one. As it happens, i strongly prefer it here, becaus of the liveliness and the opportunity for give and take among a variety of people. I like to work in an atmosphere where everyone can edit, and both real experts and self-styled experts have to prove themselves to the general body of workers. Wikipedia is in fact to a considerable extend not a means to an end, but an experiment in a particular means to an end, an open content encyclopedia. This has never really been tried before, and at present we're the only large scale sucessful project of the sort. It is therefore probably a good idea to keep the principles intact, and experiment with other editing principles separately. there should be no difficulty doing this,since anyone can fork the content and continue as they please.  In addition to Citizendium, there is for example, Veropedia, which is basically doing just that--starting with Wikipedia  articles, and reviewing them by experts. They are both valuable projects, and there are many other ways to do it also, all the way up to Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, with a top-down structure of invited formally qualified senior academic editors. I dont know this is the best way ultimately, but it's a successful way. We should refine it perhaps, and find a way of resolving disputes without forcing people into fighting who can keep from being thrown out for the worse behavior. But the basic principle of open editing is the real reason for the project. At the ultimate philosophical justification, its the appeal to reason, rather than authority.  DGG (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It sounded great to me initially, but I think it might actually help the skilled content warriors (SCW). Kinda by definition, they're skilled.  What's to stop a SCW from initiating one of these against a non skilled editor.  They'll be able to cite sources (in a POV way) and win against someone who is just trying to remove incorrect info, or add correct info without knowing how to do it super well.  Maybe a version that doesn't effect all parties would work better?  If someone is going to be blocked for warring, maybe a ruling of only helpful edits could help out?  I have a feeling they would just ignore it until they're blocked or it goes to arbcom, though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Status?
So what status does this page have? It purports to be from the arbcomm, but we know there are problems with that interpretation. The OM "judgement" is vacated; does that vacate this page too? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Policy proposal? Suggestion for community involvement/discussion? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dead?
Found this while pruning my watchlist. It appears to be dead but so unloved that no-one has bothered to mark it as such. The header sez ''Note: There is presently some uncertainty as to events surrounding this announcement, and whether it has been determined by the Arbitration Committee in its decision-making capacity. It is not expected that ArbCom will clarify the matter in the near future. The current status of this page is "on hold"''. It can't still be "on hold" can it? William M. Connolley (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)