Begin forwarded message:
> From: Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: October 14, 2006 1:11:33 PM MDT > To: "Sarah Tuttle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: Fred Bauder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [Citizendium-l] Editorial Disputes - Tools we already > have? > > > On Oct 14, 2006, at 9:15 AM, Sarah Tuttle wrote: > >> I'm a bit new to this conversation, so excuse me if I'm treading >> where I >> shouldn't. >> >> It seems like by mashing together two (fairly) servicable models, >> we might >> come up with something quite fair, documented, reversable and >> solid. If >> editors edit in a process similar to the academic review process, >> ie, by >> submiting documented challenges/inquiries/clarifications to the >> author, >> then the process of editing is well documented. > > This in the intended use of the article talk page. Used well, it > could function like this with the record of the dialog available to > the reader and other editors. Wikipedia article talk pages are > usually much less informative and in the case of disputed articles, > tend to rehash issues, all contained in multiple archived pages. > >> If there is an appeal then >> send it to the appelate court - let's say three editors, one of >> whom has >> some expertise in the area in question. Majority rule is >> documented, as >> is the dissenting opinion if there is one. That way, if at some >> point the >> issue is revisited, the meat of the discussion and decision is easily >> referenced. Three is enough to give fair consideration while not >> overly >> burdening the editorial staff, and by randomly choosing all the >> editors >> (from the whole pool in the case of two, and from a smaller pool >> for the >> third) any personal/political issues that have surfaced should be >> easy to >> spot and move past. > > This solution was rejected on Wikipedia, both dispute resolution > concerning content, and the designation of experts in a subject > area to help with content disputes. The consequence is that content > questions are approached only through the backdoor of improper > behavior, habitually using unreliable sources, edit warring, or > biased editing. That done by a committee which is usually not > editing in that area of content, and not expert in it. In addition, > the resolution of the dispute is not part of the talk page of the > article, but off in prior arbitration cases. Your proposed solution > should work much better. > >> >> Curious to see how it all turns out. >> Sarah Tutle >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Citizendium-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > > Larry, > > Thanks for the mailing list back. I'll do my best to make > constructive comments. > > Fred Bauder > _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
