as:ৱিকিপিডিয়া:ৰাইজৰ চ'ৰা (প্রস্তাবসমূহ)
hu:Wikipédia:Kocsmafal (javaslatok)
id:Wikipedia:Warung Kopi (Usulan)
ka:ვიკიპედია:ყავახანა/წინადადებები
pt:Wikipedia:Esplanada/propostas
zh-yue:Wikipedia:城市論壇 (提議)
|
|
For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard.
|
What I have been guilty of myself in the past is including what my search term was when linking in a google books link for a reference, for example (not mine) http://books.google.com/?id=6PrmTAKiy0QC&pg=PA153&dq=nubian+pyramids+kings++tomb . This goes to the correct book (the id= and the specific page, but also highlights nubian, pyramids, king and tomb in the text which I don't think is needed. I'd like to see all of the links to books.google.com reduced down to only the id and pg fields. First of all, where would it be discussed as to whether this trim down is appropriate, and secondly, if it is, would this be a reasonable thing for a bot to do?Naraht (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- There is {{Google books quote}} which may help in some cases. Helder 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I discussed this at Help:Citation Style 1#Web links, but that page has a specific focus. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you to you both, I didn't know about the various google related templates. I still think things can be simplified, I can't for example see any reason that the search term can't be simplified out of things, is there a better place to discuss this?Naraht (talk) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
↓skip to conclusion↓
I have made a proposal on making conciliation another step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Wikipedia has already enacted other alternative dispute resolution in place such as, mediation and arbitration.
The proposal is explained in detail on the proposal page. In short, conciliation relies on the disputing parties to resolve the dispute with minimal interference from a third party, a conciliator. This allows the parties to feel responsible about managing their own conflicts, enables the parties to become better negotiators, therefore, the parties tend to deal more effectively with conflict in future disputes. At first this may seem very similar to mediation, however, that is not the case. Conciliation involves a pre-caucus (or "pre-meeting") where the parties meet one-on-one with a conciliator to release any pent up concerns or emotional attachment to the dispute, thus, allowing the parties to focus on improving the content of the page at the joint session rather than being alienated with emotions and concerns.
I am pleased to answer any of your questions relating to this proposal. I welcome comments on this proposal below and hope the community supports my idea. Whenaxis about | talk 00:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, an interesting idea. I do have a few questions, because at present I feel attention is needed at the top level of dispute resolution, and that processes like DRN have been effective at getting uninvolved editors looking at disputes in an open (noticeboard) format. Where do you see conciliation fitting in with regards to the DR hierarchy? I've just read the article on Conciliation and it does seem to be an interesting concept, but I do think that elements of conciliation already exist within a well-structured mediation. Any good mediator will get the parties to put together a list of issues, get them to prioritise the issues from least to most important, and work from the least contentious issues first, thereby when progress is made on small issues, parties may be more willing to negotiate on larger ones.
- There are a few other issues I see here. I feel that perhaps separating the parties and mainly having them discuss issues through a conciliator could cause problems down the road, with parties perhaps relying on the assistance of a third party to resolve disputes, where mediation focuses on a facilitator discussing issues with parties, and assisting them in collaborating on the issues. I also feel that the role of a conciliator would require more legwork than a mediator, and at present there are very few active users in dispute resolution (I hopefully will be able to address that at some point, keep your eyes peeled out for a large survey) and that such a role may be one that few are willing to take. The last issue I see is complexity of dispute resolution. At present, content dispute resolution is relatively simple. Discuss on talk page, get a third opinion or DRN, and if that doesn't work, either an RFC and/or mediation. Adding another step might just confuse people, and I'm honestly not sure where it'd fit into the hierarchy of DR. Sorry to throw so many comments at you all at once. I do see some merit in this proposal, but I do think it could be incorporated into an existing venue (such as mediation) by explaining a few techniques mediators can use to resolve disputes (like in a crash course for new users to dispute resolution) rather than a separate process altogether. I look forward to your reply. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 01:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC) (and why haven't you joined the DR army?) :([reply]
- Oppose - Another layer of bureaucracy and confusion in the offing. Far better to give current dispute resolution measures some teeth in the form of binding decisions and topic bans. Additional touchy-feely for the benefit of obstructionist minorities isn't going to help anything. Carrite (talk) 01:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the pinnacle of dispute resolution needs more catchbasins, if you will, because the lower tiers of dispute resolution there are a lot of options to pursue like the ones you previously stated. Maybe, inline with the dispute resolution diagram you created it could be: Talk page discussion/3O → DRN/RFC → MedCab/Conciliation → MedCom. Further, at first conciliation did seem contentiously similar to mediation to me, however, I began to grasp the concept of conciliation as I did more research online.
- Conciliation works with the parties separately at first, discussing individual priorities so when it comes to the joint session they can see at the same eye level. I think that working one-on-one is beneficial, even essential, to the parties because they've probably discussed in length with the other disputing parties and want to release the stress and concerns that naturally comes with having a dispute (we've all been there before). It fits with Wikipedia policies, to be civil and welcoming and so on, and I strongly believe that if there's that supportive personal connection, dispute resolution would be a lot easier for content disputes and easier for the disputant to feel welcome rather than having them feel that their good faith edits are completely unwelcome. So, I think that this could certainly be integrated into mediation if there is no other way to fit conciliation into the hierachy chart. As Carrite suggests above, some people don't want to use conciliation so, this certainly could be an alternative to mediation (assuming that there are people who don't like mediation also). Whenaxis about | talk 02:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC) [I joined the DR army ;)][reply]
- Hmm...have thought about a reply for a while. As one who has observed many disputes over the years, I can't really think of a dispute which this sort of alternative DR method would address. Disputes reach a process like mediation because it has been unguided (read: no third party involved) or unstructured (read: TL;DR threads on talk pages) and often, tempers are flared. But dispute resolution should be about getting the parties to work together. While this option may allow users to vent their frustrations and clarify what they want addressed in the dispute, this is a double edged sword. It may also allow people to moan and complain about the other parties, and could have the opposite of the desired effect, driving the parties further apart as opposed to bringing them together.
- The amount of "talent" we have within dispute resolution on Wikipedia, that is, the day to day disputes that appear in various places, is limited to a small bunch of users. I feel that such a role (one of a concilliator) may not be an attractive one (heck, none of them really are) and has the potential to create a backlog, similar to the ones that appear at DRN from time to time.
- I have one last point here. Skilled users at dispute resolution put togeher a mediators handbag over the years, with various tricks and techniques they can pull out of it, depending on the situation. A good mediator is one that can deal with tricky disputes, a great mediator is one that can adapt to changes in circumstances in tricky disputes. One can act as a guide, gently directing discussions within mediation, at other times, they can lock discussion right down when things get out of hand. I think that what we need is more users active in dispute resolution, create a crash course for newer users at dispute resolution, with a handful of test cases and ways to deal with them. Essentially, showing them "the ropes". The more the merrier. There's a reason I have "Join the DR army" in my signature. Promoting the cause! Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 03:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One other thing to note, at Wikipedia:Conciliation/Example one of your comments was that "Conciliation is not mediation, thus, conciliation is more open for parties to discuss" but I disagree here, a good mediator allows discussion to be freer. With conciliation, parties are segregated for a time, so I feel it may actually be the opposite. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose We don't need to formalize this process, which takes place already on Wikipedia often (and why shouldn't it, it's a common procedure in the American legal profession). Formalized processes, by virtue of being formalized, can scare people off. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with Sven - I don't see a particular reason to formalize this procedure, but I see every reason that it could be incorporated into the mediation system we already have. There's nothing to stop someone going to WP:MEDCAB and implementing this on a new dispute there right now. I do agree with the general thrust of the proposal though - education of new users should be a primary aim of any dispute resolution process, and working out ways to make disputants more self-reliant (and hence enable mediators to tend to more disputes) can only be a good thing. I think this proposal could be incorporated into the as-yet-unwritten guide to dispute resolution that Steven Zhang mentioned, and that it would be very useful for editors new to DR. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Definitely don't want separate mediation and conciliation. SHould just their act togethwer with the mediation lot. If mediation doesn't work then it should be possible somehow to get a binding decision easily for some set time like three or six months rather than eternal edit wars. Dmcq (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for use elsewhere. I agree with both Sven and Mr. Stradivarius. This is a great idea, but I'm just not sure that formalizing it is the best approach. Using it as a semi-informal part of the mediation process would be an excellent idea. DCItalk 19:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Steven Zhang, I have to agree that conciliation could be misused. However, all such circumstances have a double-edge to it, for example, the Internet can be used as an excellent research tool and for easier communications, however, the Internet can also be misused for pornography, internet crimes and viruses. Sometimes, it's really hard to convince a group of people until they see first-hand on the potential of it. For instance, even though I !voted against your idea for binding content discussions, I agree that a trial should be in store (like your proposal at ArbCom for abortion) to test the idea out. Similarly, this idea could too be put through a trial and tested. On a side note, I completely agree with your notion about what a good mediator is, however, are you suggesting to provide some sort of training process for new users to dispute resolution? Maybe, a good mediator is really a conciliator. Whenaxis about | talk 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Steven Zhang, I have to agree that conciliation could be misused. However, all such circumstances have a double-edge to it, for example, the Internet can be used as an excellent research tool and for easier communications, however, the Internet can also be misused for pornography, internet crimes and viruses. Sometimes, it's really hard to convince a group of people until they see first-hand on the potential of it. For instance, even though I !voted against your idea for binding content discussions, I agree that a trial should be in store (like your proposal at ArbCom for abortion) to test the idea out. Similarly, this idea could too be put through a trial and tested. On a side note, I completely agree with your notion about what a good mediator is, however, are you suggesting to provide some sort of training process for new users to dispute resolution? Maybe, a good mediator is really a conciliator. Whenaxis about | talk 9:10 am, Today (UTC+11)
- Hmm, the thing I see with the binding content discussions issues is that there is, in my opinion, a need for an option like this. In my mind, it's a missing piece in the dispute resolution puzzle that I've been trying to put together since May 2011. Indeed, I don't see it as something utilized often, but still think an option between mediation and arbitration would be useful. I'm back to the drawing board with this one.
- I don't see where concilliation as a separate process would work, because in my mind it's not a missing piece to the puzzle. One of the missing pieces was DRN, which has worked to both resolve disputes in an open style, at the same time it gets people involved in resolving disputes and builds their skills (read: adds more troops to the DR army). Part of my evil plan, muahaha. But in all seriousness, I do think that we (read: those that are active in dispute resolution) should band together and come up with techniques and ideas for those newer to dispute resolution, to show them the ropes. A good mediator can get parties to work together, indeed, but from my experiences if a dispute has gone through talk page discussion and one other DR process (like DRN) and is still unresolved, it will require some assistance in the form of a mediator to resolve the dispute. Most mediators have a sound knowledge of policies, where parties that would self-mediate may not. This is one of the reasons why I think this could be incorporated into mediation, but probably isn't viable as a separate process.
- One last thing to note. I'm currently working on a few ideas to get disputes resolved before they blow out of proportion. One is a Cluebot-style robot that picks up potential disputes and might list them on a page for review (or add the talk page to a category) with another being this page, a reference desk style page that lists the different areas that dispute resolution can be requested, what they can/can't help with, etc. It'd also list some of the most and least active issues under discussion, but this would need some bot work, and would be tricky to implement (would require the main RSN page to be transcluded onto the RD style page, with a bot moving tags around the threads. But that's for later I guess. I think the ClueBot style robot to pick up disputes is a viable idea, and would appreciate ideas on that. The crash course for new mediators is something we can all work on as well. Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 22:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose While this proposal has merit (and thanks for the careful preparation), conciliation would only work between editors who would be persuaded by reasonable discussion. As the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, most disputes concern POV pushing of some form or another, and the only way to make Wikipedia manageable with more editors will be to do what Carrite said above: give existing processes some teeth. Conciliation would just be another step whereby the passionately involved POV pusher would have another forum in which to drown their opponents (often a small number of established editors with limited time and other interests). Johnuniq (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: Closing this RfC—can be amalgamated into mediation. Whenaxis about | talk 02:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
It would make some things a lot easier, like screening for missed vandalism and stuff. :| Glacialfox (talk) 19:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to clarify? Regards, RJH (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I get it. A "user contributions" list says "(top)" where relevant, but a "recent changes" list does not. Consider this listing of the 250 most recent changes in the Portal namespace. If a particular edit looks dubious, a "(top)" next to it would confirm that it still needs fixing.
- But I don't find this a problem. With Navigation popups enabled, it is easy to see the "diff" of the edit and just as easy to hover over the "history" link to see whether anyone has reverted it. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about ACTA?
Is it as dangerous as SOPA and PIPA?
How did Wikipedia's SOPA initiative miss it?
Shouldn't it have been the ACTA/PIPA/SOPA initiative? Should we be worried?
What are the ramifications of ACTA's being signed? (yesterday)
The European Parliament's appointed rapporteur resigned over this. Has anyone (WMF, Signpost) contacted that person for a statement?
How transparent were ACTA's negotiations?
How will ACTA affect Wikipedia?
How will it affect the Wayback Machine? That's the best place I know of to see historically accurate past versions of Wikipedia pages. (Templates screw up historical views of pages on Wikipedia).
How and when would ACTA go into effect?
What is happening in the Wikipedia community and in the Wikimedia Foundation about ACTA?
What articles about ACTA is The Signpost working on?
What, if anything, should Wikipedia do about ACTA?
I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 02:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would we care if the negotiations were transparent or not? Flaws in some countries' democratic processes aren't relevant to Wikipedia. Unless ACTA actually harms our mission, we can't get involved. --Yair rand (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia is a world-wide mission. English is the second language pretty much everywhere that it's not the first language. Or close enough. The Transhumanist 03:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think ACTA could threaten our mission someday, but there is not a clear and present danger. It's just in the negotiation phase right now. At this stage, the best thing to do is not to protest but to get our representatives in on the drafting process. If the US drafts a bill for ACTA compliance that affect us negatively, that will be the time to protest. Dcoetzee 02:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But it has already been signed. How does that work? I thought treaties had to be ratified by the Senate. But this, which obligates its parties to certain actions, is being called a “sole executive agreement”. So my next question is, did it become binding on the US government when (USTR) Ambassador Ron Kirk signed it last October? The Transhumanist 05:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- While I don't feel ACTA is quite the clear and present danger that SOPA was, at least at this moment, I also think we should suggest to the Wikimedia Foundation that they produce a contingency plan for moving the servers to Sweden, in order to ensure a fallback position is available. Also, a backup of Wikipedia's data should probably be held there.—S Marshall T/C 12:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@T: Test. Y (talk) 07:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Y: Test. X (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @X: Test. Y (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
