Knowino talk:Dispute resolution

[edit] Why the poll?

As for me, most disputes can be resolved without polls etc. by using (a) content forking, and (b) expert assessment (no need to delete something, just leave it unapproved/negatively assessed). Also, for now the text does not distinguish disputes between two authors, between author and reviewer, and between two reviewers. --Boris Tsirelson 01:07, 27 December 2010 (EST)

Well, we only recently decided on temporary content forking for dispute resolution. This page is on my list to update, although improving Knowino:About is my main priority at the moment—feel free to edit it yourself, though.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2010 (EST)

I am reluctant to edit it myself, since handlebars of a bicycle should be in a single pair of hands. --Boris Tsirelson 01:36, 27 December 2010 (EST)

 :-) No worries. I'll try to update the page a little later this afternoon.—Thomas Larsen (talk) 02:01, 27 December 2010 (EST)

┌─────────┘

I've made a few changes (I hope they are improvements) to the page. Boris (and anyone else who's interested), what are your thoughts so far?—Thomas Larsen (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2010 (EST)

"Numbering should not be taken to imply any kind of precedence." – I am afraid, this does not help, since "a link to the forks is provided from the original disputed area in the main article", and I see no way to avoid a precedence: some link must be the first. --Boris Tsirelson 00:54, 28 January 2011 (EST)

And again, forks could be useful also for competition. Maybe this is not a matter of dispute, but could be stipulated somewhere. If Author B feels to be able to rewrite the article completely (implementing a different approach, not local changes), while Author A does not agree that version B is better than version A, is it a dispute? Versions A and B could coexist for assessment (by readers and experts). Is it acceptable? If it is, does it require a sign of administrator? --Boris Tsirelson 01:02, 28 January 2011 (EST)

You know, I did consider the possibility of having a template that would choose the order of the links randomly, but I think in practice the danger of implied precedence is likely to be negligible. If it does pose an issue, a simple clarifying note would almost certainly do the trick.

If "Author A does not agree that version B is better than version A", that is a dispute. The purpose of getting an administrator to sign on the discussion page is to avoid forks over stupid things: forking an entire article over the presence of a comma in the last sentence of an article would be ridiculous. Hence, I still think it's a good idea to maintain that safeguard, but in principle it shouldn't block forks like the one you mentioned from going ahead.

In some cases, it might be appropriate to choose a "dominant" article to take precedence and be displayed initially to readers. If one person disputes an entire article that one hundred other experts support, should the article be trimmed down to a stub and forked? Sure, the content would still be there, but balance issues could pose a problem.—Tom Larsen (talk) 03:14, 28 January 2011 (EST)

I see. But my point is different. Imagine that a honorable A wrote an article, and a honorable B has an idea of a different approach. Now, B does not claim that version A is bad, and does not want to attack author A. He just wants to try his approach in a hope (just a hope, not a claim) that his approach is better for readers. Or even less: better for some (say, 30%) of readers. His version is worth a try, but he hesitates to open a dispute, this is the problem! It is a very different feeling, to say "I disagree with you" or to say "let me try another approach"; the former is (felt as) a kind of aggression; the latter is much more tolerant. Again, competition can be very profitable for the project (and is a distinction from WP), if the rules give it green light. For now they do not. --Boris Tsirelson 05:59, 28 January 2011 (EST)

Note also a procedural difference. B does not want "to resolve a dispute through polite conversation", nor to "decide upon an ad hoc panel of editors to mediate the dispute"; he just wants to present his alternative for assessment. Afterwards is may be decided, what to do: keep both? choose one? merge? Whatever, but only afterwards, this is my point. --Boris Tsirelson 06:35, 28 January 2011 (EST)

You make excellent points. I'll try to integrate something into the page tomorrow—although perhaps, on second thoughts, we should have a separate page to describe content-forking requirements and procedures? As you said, competition doesn't necessarily equal a dispute.—Tom Larsen (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2011 (EST)

I am glad you like it. It is close to my "yes to competition, no to conflict" from Knowino talk:Rules#Some fatal errors to avoid. And let me recall your words: "I don't see any reason to delete an "unpopular" fork, unless it is clearly inappropriate for Knowino." Dissimilar to "The disputed area is temporarily forked" --Boris Tsirelson 09:09, 28 January 2011 (EST)

So a distinction should probably be made between forking (temporary; for dispute resolution; original disputed section "stubbed") and writing an entirely new or almost new article (permanent; for constructive competition; to give readers another perspective; original article left intact...?). Obviously some guidelines should be established, but I'm too tired to think logically right now, so I'll leave that as a task for tomorrow (oops, today, it's already 1:30 AM). Good night!—Tom Larsen (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2011 (EST)