What is that ArbComm for?

Arbitration Committee activities and elections, Requests for Comment, and Requests for Administration.
Proabivouac
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Proabivouac » Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:56 am

Renée Bagslint wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:35 pm
Let's just note that with a projected income next FY of $93 million, the WMF could afford to assemble a panel of a hundred scholars to sort out issues, which are essentially about how to write articles, and still have 90% of their income to spend on other things. For some reason, they choose not to do this.
This would set the very bad precedent that people other than computer programmers and movement fanatics might deserve to be paid sometimes. This violates the whole principle of Wikipedia. It's a slippery slope: maybe it will work, and next year someone will suggest diverting another 10% to bonafide scholars? The great thing about wasting money on things like Visual Editor and Flow is that we can hire people we know to waste it. Where is Littlefinger to tell us that incompetence is a ladder?

Meanwhile Brad, who for all the mud flung at him on criticism sites remains a relatively sane fish in a pond of crazy, has pushed back against some of the "findings":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =849823678

And this from the talk page:
Peacemaker67 wrote: I provided considerable evidence that K.e.coffman has deleted a great deal of non-contentious material without adequate explanation. In many cases, such as dates and places of birth and death etc, this material was based on reliable sources that he himself removed from the articles. No evidence was provided by anyone that these sources were questionable or biased, or that this information was based primarily on biased or questionable sources, and no explanation was provided as to why it was necessary to remove dates and places of birth and death (and other uncontentious material) from so many articles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... acemaker67
Hypothesis: no one read it.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Renée Bagslint » Thu Jul 12, 2018 6:08 am

Proabivouac wrote:
Thu Jul 12, 2018 4:56 am
[...]
Meanwhile Brad, who for all the mud flung at him on criticism sites remains a relatively sane fish in a pond of crazy, has pushed back against some of the "findings":

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =849823678
[...]
Which is odd, because he was one of the two arbitrators responsible for drafting the proposed decision. It seems that neither of the two drafters believed in what they were writing. Surely this is very odd?

User avatar
Dysklyver
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2018 2:10 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Dysklyver » Thu Jul 12, 2018 5:04 pm

Odd, but completely to be expected of course. You can't expect arbitrators to write what they think, they have to write considered opinions.

Or in street parlance. "Two faced balloocks".
Also on other forums. Also on wikipediocracy. I live at www.wiki.org.uk

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Renée Bagslint » Sat Jul 14, 2018 6:27 am

It seems that ArbComm has decided to rewrite the rules on sourcing. They propose as a principle:
Two arbitrators wrote:Editors should always try to use the most reliable sources available for any given topic, with the editorial oversight, fact-checking and bias within the source taken into consideration. Depending on the context, non-neutral or biased sources can be used if they are the best sourcing for information held on a subject. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight and should not be used for citing contentious claims. Where the use of questionable or biased sources is agreed to be appropriate, information about their nature should be indicated so that readers can judge their value.
This contradicts Wikipedia's policy on verifiability
Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.

Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves, such as in articles about themselves; see below. They are not suitable sources for contentious claims about others.
In other words, ArbComm proposes that questionable sources can be used when editors agree with them. In other words, the consensus of other, reliable, sources, is to be replaced by the judgement of a handful of anonymous loons. What could possibly go wrong?

Proabivouac
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 7:01 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Proabivouac » Sun Jul 15, 2018 9:27 am

Compared to former arbitrator GorillaWarfare's use of linkedin and youtube as well as various blogs on her HubSpot femtech spam bios, use of contemporary German sources for WWII figures doesn't seem that bad.

Renée Bagslint
Posts: 164
Joined: Sat Nov 25, 2017 1:43 pm

Re: What is that ArbComm for?

Post by Renée Bagslint » Tue Jul 17, 2018 6:38 am

Meanwhile, the proposed decision on "BLP issues on British politics articles", otherwise known as the "Philip Cross is up to something but we don't quite know what" case, was due yesterday. No, that hasn't appeared either.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests