On Tue, 25 Aug 2020 at 14:08, Gnangarra <gnanga...@gmail.com> wrote: > that doesn't mean we don't try to find alternative ways and improve on the > way we deal with issues
Having observed and researched the working of ANI it became apparent to me that the unstructured nature of the discussions there allows for great fluctuations in what selection of opinions and interests are represented in each discussion. As the outcome of discussions is mostly steered by the number of editors supporting any resolution, it's easy to drown out individual views, even if that's the closest to the truth. A more structured format that would limit statements and present them equally - similar to ArbCom's - would ensure more protection from steering discussions towards a non-neutral outcome based on popularity. Previously in the discussions about the User reporting system I've drafted ( ref <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/User_reporting_system_consultation_2019#Factual,_evidence_based_reporting_tool_-_draft,_proposal>) how a tool that ensures this format would work. I believe that approach would limit how "dramatic" a dispute can become. Aron _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
