Slashdot Mirror
Last Stop For Wikipedia's Feuding Editors -- Online High Court (wsj.com)
Wikipedia has its own internal "Supreme Court," which adjudicates disputes, takes appeals, and even issues injunctions [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled]. The cases it hears are as petty as you'd expect. Fascinating story by WSJ: Wikipedia, the vast online crowdsourced encyclopedia, has a high court. It is a panel called the Arbitration Committee, largely unknown to anyone other than Wiki aficionados, which hears disputes that arise after all other means of conflict resolution have failed. The 15 elected jurists on the English-language Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee -- among them a former staffer for presidential candidate John Kerry, an information-technology consultant in a tiny British village and a retired college librarian -- have clerks, write binding decisions and hear appeals. They even issue preliminary injunctions.
Founded in 2001, Wikipedia operates largely through community consensus. All editors are volunteers, and anyone can write and edit its millions of articles. In online forums, editors debate content, sources and style, and typically manage to broker peace by talking -- or rather, typing -- it out. But every so often, tempers flare, necessitating a more stringent brand of justice. In 2003, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales created the committee, known as ArbCom, as the final stop in the site's dispute-resolution process. "There are things that wouldn't start an argument anywhere else that can still start an argument on Wikipedia," says Ira Matetsky, a Manhattan litigator and the unpaid panel's longest-serving current member. Among them: capitalization rules and whether individual television episodes deserve encyclopedia entries.
Founded in 2001, Wikipedia operates largely through community consensus. All editors are volunteers, and anyone can write and edit its millions of articles. In online forums, editors debate content, sources and style, and typically manage to broker peace by talking -- or rather, typing -- it out. But every so often, tempers flare, necessitating a more stringent brand of justice. In 2003, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales created the committee, known as ArbCom, as the final stop in the site's dispute-resolution process. "There are things that wouldn't start an argument anywhere else that can still start an argument on Wikipedia," says Ira Matetsky, a Manhattan litigator and the unpaid panel's longest-serving current member. Among them: capitalization rules and whether individual television episodes deserve encyclopedia entries.
You're on Slashdot and you don't know how to bypass a paywall, so I guess the joke is on you.
Irrelevant. You're editor on a site that receives millions of visitors per month, and you post on the front page a paywalled link as the story to read?
FAIL.
I don't like bashing /. editors, but unfortunately it's too often called for. Sending readers to look for ways around a paywall, is not a good thing. From ethical nor editorial p.o.v.
"Wikipedia: the source of all often accurate information"
I came up with that quip years ago. Feel free to spread it around.
I use wikipedia way to much. One of the major reasons I use wikipedia is that, compared to many other sites, it is easy to read, comprehend, navigate, does not load up a lot ads, cookies, etc. It wins on the 'mental ergonomics.'
In the area of hard science, I trust that if I am looking up the atomic weight of an element or something from basic physics it will be accurate. That is because if anyone enters erroneous info in those area, it easy for someone else to spot an error hard facts and replace with a correct entry.
But, in subject matters where science has not been done, or the issue is artistic merit, in other words, where opinion matters because facts are lacking or the subject is about what what people like or value, then, like the rest of the internet, you get people battling over opinions. Often mistaking them for facts.
And then there are trolls and vandals...
I'm pretty critical of wikipedia, but where they win is that even though any given article is likely to be written by hired-guns promoting their masters opinions, the very fact that they have to pretend to sound kind-of sort-of neutral forces them to tone down their act somewhat to the point where what they're saying has to be at least comprehensible.
Compare tech industry advertising copy to wikipedia pages about corporate products... there's something to be said for comprehensible bullshit.