Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Archive 2

Editorial arbitration

 * Not sure if I should reply here or on the talk page, but I think you're absolutely right. The major problem with the Shorne-VV-Ruy Lopez-et al affair isn't etiquette or protocol, it's that there are two sharply conflicting views of Communism and related topics (and not a little POV-pushing, to my mind). Arbcom isn't properly constituted nor has the proper mandate to settle that dispute (and until we have a solution we won't have peace on those articles). Mackensen (talk) 23:27, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. Regarding where we should continue this discussion, I suppose that we should start elaborating on this proposal at Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration. 172 23:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't this be on a talk page? Feel free to move my comments along with the rest if you agree with that. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily object -- any arbitration that all parties choose to accept is a good thing -- but:
 * Outside of their own immediate field, in my experience Ph.D.s don't have much of an edge on any other decent scholar. To cite some recent Wikipedia conflicts:
 * I do not believe that a Ph.D. particularly qualifies someone to decide whether or not Sonic Youth are a grunge band. (Not even a Ph.D. in contemporary pop-cultural studies. The expertise on some things is not in academia.)
 * I do not see how Ph.D.s are any more qualified than any other broadly politically aware people to decide whether or not it is ever appropriate to call someone a "terrorist" in the narrative voice of a Wikipedia article, nor to choose among several competing defnitions of that term. Some things are inherently politically charged, and while there may be a certain sector of the academic community in which people can agree on a single definition and use the term with precision, that is more likely to indicate that this is a relatively politically homogeneous section of the academic community than to indicate that the definition is in any way objective.
 * As a pretty solid scholar who doesn't happen to have a Ph.D. (my most advanced degree is an M.S. in Computer Science), I'm not necessarily inclined to defer to someone just because he/she has a doctorate or is on the way to one. I've recently been involved in a conflict with a grad student in a Ph.D. program whose work here in Wikipedia seems to me to border on sociopathic. In general, working on controversial topics, I have seen no indication that a Ph.D. makes one any less likely to be a POV warrior. Credentials do not create intellectual honesty.


 * Excellent observations aboveby Jmabel. I would not support a PhD requirement to serve on any review board on Wiki based on a number of reasons that you are bringing up above; though I think that PhDs should make up a large share of such a committee. An important component of any proposal for an editorial review board on Wiki will be built-in mechanisms for recruiting applicants who have emerged as trusted editors on Wiki and recognizing professional or "real world" expertise. 172 01:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A way of sorting out the lame PhDs from better-qualified non-academics could be to allow any interested Wikipedian to submit a resume illustrating any credentials he/she chooses to highlight to the groups or individuals charged with reviewing the candidates. (Jimbo, the Foundation, or an ad hoc committee established by the Jimbo and/or the Foundation could conceivably review candidates.) As a further test, the applicants could then go on to face confirmation in a vote in which all Wikipedia users can participate... So, in short, I agree with Jmabel. We can't just allow anyone with an account and a PhD to automatically start serving on any sort of review board that may get started. 172 01:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Where I see editorial arbitration winning is on either/or choices where voting by editors has been inconclusive, and you need a stick for the intransigent. An example would be German/Polish nomenclature, which would be a problem even if individuals' behaviors were never bad enough to get them in front of the existing AC. Editorial arbitrators could take the case, collect evidence, and render a decision that would become part of our existing body of policy for content. Similarly for POV disputes; the arbitrators could even ask for and approve a new passage, as a way of stopping an edit war. (Subsequent people could still edit, but the talk page would have some kind of permanent warning perhaps.) Stan 01:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excellent observations by Stan as well. So much time could have been saved if the existing arbitration committee had the jurisdiction to come up with editorial guidelines for German/Polish nomenclature. 172 01:51, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Despite my history of acrimonious disputes with 172 over editorial matters, I think that is an excellent suggestion, and I commend his acknowledgement that he, as an anonymous editor, should not be a member of such a group. I am rapidly coming to the view that all Wikipedia editors should be required to edit under real and verifiable names, unless there is some compelling reason (such as living in North Korea) why they should not. Unless Wikipedia takes some strong action soon to protect editorial standards and legitimate editors against fools, fanatics, cultists and ideologues, it will lose not only many of those editors but also any credibility it may have accrued. Adam 03:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I really don't think anonymity is at the heart of the problem. Can you give me information that would convince me otherwise? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't claim anonymity is the "heart of the problem," but it is certainly a significant part of the problem. If someone like the LaRouche cultist Herschelkrustofsky were required to edit under his real name, he would think twice before slandering people (includimg me) as freely as he does. Adam 03:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Amen, plus real names make sock puppet accounts impossible. Stan 04:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * While establishing an editorial review board may be in the realm of possibility, I doubt that there is enough support, at least right now, to make any major changes to the existing "you can edit any article right now" model, although Adam's suggestion is interesting and warrants further discussion. But even so, the candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees were required to submit their names and outside contact information. Thus, the two elected members of the board, Florence Nibart-Devouard (a.k.a. User: Anthere) and Angela Beesley (a.k.a. User:Angela), do not serve on the board in the capacities of their pseudonymous Wikipedia user accounts. Since the Foundation will probably be in the position of accepting the applications or establishing an ad hoc committee charged with getting an editorial review board started, applicants will almost certainly have to be subject to the same requirements as those to which the candidates for the board were subject earlier this year. 172 04:42, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)



Wikipedia is the resume
Maybe this will sound dumb, but why are you worrying about PhDs and resumes of qualifications and all of those things? Wikipedia is already a better resume than any of that. You can see every single edit a user has ever made to articles and talk pages.

Who cares what a user does in their time outside of the project. It's rather simple to judge whether they're qualified by their edits alone. It's also not suceptable to the POV-pusher PhD, nor does it exclude someone without formal qualifications but who takes the time and care to make fair and neutral edits.

Heck, you could also make an argument that someone who knows nothing about the subject at hand is the most likely to be neutral because they don't have a POV to push! I think perhaps the ideal wikipedia editor is someone who is very smart but also very ignorant. ;) Shane King 04:37, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * There is some merit to what you are stating above, particularly with respect to the last paragraph. So, on that note, I doubt that anyone will go along with a proposal that allows any editor, regardless of his qualifications, to make decisions arbitrarily or to place himself above Wikimedia/Wikipedia policies. What is being proposed, though, is a review board (a) set up along the lines of the Arbitration Committee (b) made up of members that go through a formal confirmation process. So just like the Wikimedia Board of Trustees and the Arbitration Committee, any review board would have strong institutional checks preventing it from acting on the basis of personal or ideological considerations. 172 04:56, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest it be run on a similar basis to the AC then. Elect people to such positions, based on what we know of them here, not on what they do outside of wikipedia. That's the only way I can see people agreeing to this scheme: if they vote for the people. The only way they're going to vote for people is based on what they know of them from here. Whether a person holds a PhD is going to count for very little in comparison to their contributions when it comes to such a vote. I can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine there will be a lot of people like me. If people are willing to elect others who have no PhD, why should we put an artificial constraint on it?


 * Besides, the biggest requirement for such a position are neutrality and good judgement, and I don't think you can get a PhD in those. ;)


 * I don't know, maybe it's just my generally dim view of the worth of formal education coming to the fore here, but I fail to see why someone having a PhD is going to be less likely to act "on the basis of personal or ideological considerations". I support what you're trying to do by setting up this project, but I don't think the methodology is sound. I think it would be more productive to have people known for their good judgement on the review panel, and have the experts (using whatever criteria you want to decide who the experts are) as advisors to the panel, but with no power of their own. Shane King 05:19, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was not making the claim that a PhD is "less likely to act 'on the basis of personal or ideological considerations.'" My point was that designing sound institutions and processes could check these impulses. Conceivably set up along the lines of the Arbitration Committee, any review board would be making decisions as an organization, not on behalf of a single individual. (Members of such a review board would make decisions based on internal voting, be bound by a set of rules and guidelines limiting their individual discretion, and have to go through a difficult confirmation process.) 172 05:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Would there be a secret handshake, too? What you are thinking about creating is the series of journalistic review processes, which is not specifically a bad idea but you need to develop a *lot* of beauracracies: how to submit, how submissions are sorted/classified, who will be on the edit board for each field of research/topic/category, maintaining a list of experts for each field/topic/category willing to review article, vetting each article to avoid possible conflicts of interest with reviewers, following up on reviews, edit board voting on submissions after reviews... While Wikipedians are extremely generous, with their time and expertise if that is all they have to offer, I'm not sure they are yet up to the level of involvement you may be thinking of. - Amgine 05:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * These were the steps involved in launching the Wikimedia Board and the Arbitration Committee. Starting a review board, though, would be even easier. We already have a Board in place to launch one, along with a number of important precedents already established. Wikipedia is now without a doubt up to it. 172 06:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * That's a good point that I hadnt thought of actually: anyone who's previously edited an article is going to be seen as biased and will have to excuse themselves from the review process. This creates a problem: I'd rather experts edited the articles here and now rather than waiting for a review process. Yet if they do so, they can no longer review it. Again, it seems to point towards my idea of having neutral reviewers who can ask experts for advice as being a more workable solution. Shane King 06:23, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why anyone who has previously edited an article is going to have to recuse himself from the review process. That would be like a member of the Arbitration Committee, e.g., recusing himself because he had had a single interaction with a user involved in a case. 172 07:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd say it would be more like someone who'd been in an extensive debate. I'm talking about major edits (ie the types of edits one would hope experts might do to their topics of expertise), not just fixing to spelling or whatever, which of course would not be grounds to recuse. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. I can just imagine the howls of bias if one of the editors of a page comes along in a position of authority and makes changes which the "normal" users have no say in. I'm not saying that such a person would be abusive of thier authority, I'm saying that it would appear that way to some people. If we want people to accept the idea of über users, those people must appear to have no vested interests. Shane King 07:25, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * Okay, this make things a bit more clear. Indeed review board members involved in a case would probably have to recuse themselves. But a review board probably wouldn't suffer from a higher rate of recusals than the Arbitration Committee. 172 07:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two tiers
I think the best way to accomplish your goal might be some way to have another tier for "approved" articles. The main level would keep the Wikipedia spirit. I also agree that we shouldn't set up a different class of users for PhDs. Maurreen 06:16, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Could we maybe set up something one step lower than Featured Articles for articles that have received some type of formal review and where the issues with the article are listed (but not necessarily yet addressed) and where those issues do not include POV issues or factual inaccuracies? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

It should be noted that featured articles are often pretty bad - clearly an intermediate stage seems problematic, since it could result in even worse articles than some of the really bad ones that have made it to featured status. Greek mythology, for instance, appeared on the main page in an enormously horrible state. john k 08:37, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I haven't ever bothered looking systematically through the featured articles, but, jeez, if they are "pretty bad" shouldn't we be trying to get them removed from featured status? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:46, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course. I just think that the idea that an "approved" article should be intermediary between a normal article and a featured article is problematic, since featured articles are themselves often problematic. Clearly, "approved" articles need to start with featured articles, and go from there...BTW, here's the Greek mythology article at the time it was featured:. john k 09:11, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, so what about my version of two-tiered system at Best of both worlds? -- Forseti 13:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Systemic bias
OK, breaking off from the previous topic heading, since ultimately we're probably discussing too much detail too early there. If I can bring the conversation back to generalities, my major concern is that this proposal may bias wikipedia towards an "expert point of view".

Now I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing (in many ways, it's obviously a good thing). However, I do believe that it's not consistent with the NPOV policy. That wouldn't be a problem with most policies; I'd just suggest the first point of order should be to try to get the policy changed. Unfortunately, the NPOV is the only policy that is, to quote Jimbo "absolute and non-negotiable".

So the real question I'm interested in is really not what specific biases the editors might bring to the table. I want to know how you plan to deal with the systemic bias that having a review panel comprised mostly of experts will introduce. Shane King 08:41, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

What kind of crazy world is it where people who actually know about a topic are assumed to have a "systematic bias" that violates NPOV? Sigh... john k 09:12, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * And even if that world existed, a review panel would not be determining content. It would just help rationalize the way editorial disputes are resolved on Wiki. None of the proposal on the table are really radical. 172 09:21, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am saying that it is "systemic" bias, not "systematic" bias by the editors. By that I mean there is bias inherent in the proposed system: it biases towards experts.


 * Secondly, I share your believe that it's crazy. However, that's the NPOV policy as I read it. Please provide an argument that convinces me I'm reading it wrong, I would love to hear it. I don't want to have to believe the NPOV puts the loony on equal footing with Einstein.


 * Finally, although you may sigh, I believe that our only choice is to follow policy, rather than just pretending it doesn't exist when it doesn't suit us. If policy is wrong, the best thing to do is to try to get it changed. If policy is wrong and Jimbo thinks it's non-negotiable, then all we can do is follow it to the letter, and perhaps thereby either prove or disprove that it works, forcing either us or him to reconsider.


 * I'm sorry if you don't like that, but the point of following policy is one that's important to me. We probably wouldn't need this page if everyone followed policy in the first place! Hence if we don't follow policy, how can we complain when others decide not to? Shane King 10:33, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * No one is proposing imposing an "expert point of view." A review board would just help interpret policies and maintain basic encyclopedic standards (accuracy, sources, proper placement of content, standard usage of terms, etc.) 172 12:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm reading too much into things, given the project is so new. I think I'll leave this to settle a bit before determining if my concerns are really valid. Thank you for your patience. :)


 * I guess one of the first things I should really be asking is what areas do you anticipate soliciting experts for? I can see history and politics being obvious ones that jump out as needing help to settle edit wars, and are easy to measure credentials. Perhaps a single area should be chosen as a trial, and if that works, expand the idea over time? I'd love to suggest the Israel/Palestine conflict as the ideal target, since it's so contentious, but that may be biting off more than anyone can chew first off! Shane King 13:10, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * My idea was starting off with history and politics and expanding it over time to other subjects as well. 172 13:27, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I would dispute that history or politics would be easy to measure credentials. Furthermore, from an academic point of view, the journals for these areas which I have viewed are nearly as replete with dispute as these areas on Wikipedia.
 * As a suggestion, it is usually easier to implement a process which has first proved itself in areas where it has few potential obstacles and strong support. May I suggest looking into an area such as taxonomy or geography as places where disputes are likely to occur but where resolution would be the priority of both parties? Asking them to try a different, perhaps more definitive, resolution process seems likely to have success.

Add-on only
In my view, whatever this group comes up with should be an addition to Wikipedia. I hope I don't come off too harshly, but if anyone wants to change the basic nature, they should start their own encyclopedia, although it can build off Wikipedia. Maurreen 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with this. RickK 22:51, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Editorial and technical processes
It seems like there are two main areas of question. I'm not sure how clear I'm being, but I think the discussion can generally be divided between how to do this with people, and how to do it with computers. That is, for example, how to flag things is a computer issue. How to decide things is a people issue.

If we divide the discussion more or less like this, it could be easier to follow. If these aren't the best labels, please change them.

Side note: I also agree that it would probably be better to start in a noncontentious area. Maurreen 17:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)