Wikipedia talk:Review of complex content disputes

What is being proposed and why?
I'm not clear about what exactly is being proposed, nor do I understand why the proposal is being made. PSWG1920, would you care to elucidate? Dlabtot (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am proposing is a new option for resolving disputes. In regards to what motivated me to create this (which may also help you understand what exactly it is I'm suggesting), see Talk:Bates_method. The issues discussed there seem too complicated for all current avenues of dispute resolution, and I am fairly sure that is not a unique circumstance. Peer review is not an option as long as the article is tagged for a content dispute. This proposed process could hold the answer. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What I am proposing is a new option for resolving disputes - and what is that option? What are you proposing?
 * The issues discussed there seem too complicated for all current avenues of dispute resolution -- I don't agree. I don't really see any complicated issues, the problem seems to be simply a paucity of editors. Dlabtot (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm suggesting that editors should have an option to list a complex dispute at this page so that one or more previously uninvolved users can thoroughly review the disputed content and offer an opinion. Such a review should when possible include an examination of the sources for said content, since the sources are often the heart of the issue. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We already have WP:THIRD as well as WP:RfC. In what way are those methods insufficient and how would your proposal address that deficiency? Dlabtot (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:THIRD is limited to disputes involving only two editors. Moreover, one offering a third opinion or responding to an RfC will not necessarily have examined the sources, which are often at the heart of a dispute. It would be awkward to do an RfC and say "only respond if you are familiar with these sources". However, the process which I am proposing would instruct anyone reviewing disputed content to examine it thoroughly. PSWG1920 (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose this completely redundant and unnecessary proposal. Dlabtot (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Oppose anything threatening the democratization of knowledge! Wikiality is a feature, not a bug; expert opinion is the "kryptonite" that threatens to bring down the lovely, if structurally unstable, castles in the sand we've been so lovingly building here. We need to get our acts together and fully embrace the obdurate amateurism that affirms our foundational principle: expert opinion has no place in an encyclopedia. WP:CONSENSUS is a holy principle, and cannot fail; it can only be failed.

Elitism is bad, especially when it comes to encyclopedias. I don't want my knowledge blandly "correct"; I want to know it was put in a pipe alongside a full spectrum of factoids ranging from "half-assed" to "incorrect", and smoked down to a nice mellow ash. We should be ruthless in our pursuit to get articles right, i.e. as consensus-y as possible; if that requires showing uppity expert editors the door, let's do so ASAP. I cannot stand these pointy-headed elitists who have the temerity to believe that their "qualifications" and "real-life achievements" mean something; who think they know how to vet and "give proper weight" to sources, some of which have big words and subtle meanings and, so the specious argument goes, require years of training to grasp fully and in context.

Anyone can edit an article, but not everybody's edits should stick: only the most consensus-y ones should. Everyone knows that. It's so obvious, we don't even need a source. We're proving it in principle and practice every day, right here at this work of performance art anyone can help build. --Jim Butler (t) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any relationship between your comment and this proposal? Dlabtot (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. I am strongly in favor of it. I am sorry if my rant above, which was intended completely sarcastically, created any other impression.  --Jim Butler (t) 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, actually it didn't create any impression other than being an attempt to be funny. Dlabtot (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets see how this draft works out. Since GA and Peer Review are much less bureaucratic (in my view) than RFC and mediation, and PSWG1920 proposes to use these as models, I look forward to seeing something good. By the way, there is another informal process that can help resolve a content dispute: bring a dispute to the attention of a wikiproject. I have seen this attract a fresh mind familiar with better sources, more than I have seen it stack the decks or fuel wikidrama. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking now that this process should be like a combination of WP:THIRD and WP:GAN, but with most limits of both removed. PSWG1920 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I am in support of such a proposition--something like this is needed. Here's a perfect case study for anyone doubting the need for something like this; right now, Scientology-related articles are on probation, due to an Arbitration case opened long ago. Since then, little resolution has come, editors on all sides have become more agitated, and the Scientology page has been locked. The case has since been brought up on WP:AE, and has been fairly stale for the last while. What we need is something like RfC for more complex disputes, such that previously uninvolved editors can work towards arriving at a consensus, in the spirit of a wiki. I have several suggestions for what I'd like to see accomplished here:
 * 1) When opening a case here, there must be a broad category selected which represents the topic of dispute. As in, a specific valid WP:CAT name.
 * 2) Any "involved" editor can open a case here but will be directly monitored for prior involvement. This could be determined programatically based on how many edits, or n, have fallen within the aforementioned category within the last time period, or x days. A template could be developed to determine this. Imagine it as a separate section (called "User Involvement") created at the top of a subpage here, which automatically adds a bulleted addition when anyone comments on the page, saying something like " has made 254 edits to Scientology-related pages in the last 19 days." (Just an example, not sure what the actual numbers are). Optionally, other editors which are involved but do not comment here could be manually added to this section, with the template automatically checking the related edits in the way described above.
 * 3) All discussion will be kept on the separate existing dispute-resolution page (i.e. talk, arbitration, or whatever the case may be). The only thing kept here will be the above "involvement" section which can be freely edited by anyone to append new usernames, a link to the discussion page in question, and links to any outstanding Requests for CheckUser cases.

So basically what we have is a requests for comment on steroids which can be applied all across the board, to spur consensus through the invocation of uninvolved editors. It's simply an organized way of requesting the wisdom of the wider masses on Wikipedia, and drawing in objective review at existing levels of mediation (ranging from article talk, user talk, arbitration cases, etc) with a link to the debate in question. ← Spidern  →  04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing your ideas. Feel free to edit the draft. PSWG1920 (talk) 15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)