User:Arcticocean/Arbitration and content
On Wikipedia, some individuals abuse our reliable sources —or manipulate the sources to give undue weight to one viewpoint. The result of this new approach would be that ArbCom would decide if an edit was meritorious or utter claptrap, which is editor-conduct arbitration in its purest form.
At present, the committee typically only neutralises editors who interact problematically, such as by being Wikipedia:Three revert rule . These tactics wear down the opposition, resulting in flame-wars that allow the collation of evidence and their rival's banning.
Recently, the Committee has come to focus on contributions as well as behaviour, for instance in Kehrli, but must do so more often. As an example, here is a description, with the details anonymised, of a real Wikipedia dispute that went to arbitration. Decide who the problem editors are, then compare who the Committee sanctioned. (See box on right.) Like most contributors, I thought that such behaviour does not exist. It does, and has gotten us a bad name among academics and others with specialist knowledge in contentious areas. If the Committee won't combat serial POV-pushing, then who will? The WMF are too aloof. The community is too disjointed. Jimbo does not have the community's support. Wikipedia is not too big to fail, and such behaviour can breed irreversible decay. The Committee must neutralise these POV-pushers; the only way to do so is to determine, when necessary, whether their edits violate our NPOV policies. |
See also
Wikipedia:Arbitrating on content: What this essay is not.
User:Heimstern/ArbCom: Which advocates a similar philosophy but stops short of recommending this approach.
Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing: Which documents "POV pushing" in the guise of constructive conduct.