User talk:Mackensen/Thought experiment

I am thrilled by the idea of content arbitration. If it only could be practicable, it would put an end to the reign of POV-pushers in Wikipedia. Currently, you need extraordinary amounts of energy and time no neutralize each of them and many good people just go away. The winner is usually the one who has more perseverence in pushing his point of view. Talk:Jogaila is a monument to ineffectiveness of discussions between the same sets of editors: their disputes may drag for years without any result. Eventually the parties start to accuse each other of incivility or personal attacks and take it to ArbCom, which ironically does not do content analysis. Even now, the only receipt to settle a content dispute is to ask other respected people to look into the matter. Why not make it official? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• I've been tempted, but I'm still not satisfied with the proposal. I don't want to increase the size of the bureaucracy any more than necessary, but I don't want this to be toothless, either. Also, I still haven't figured out a good way appoint these people. I think an RfA-style mechanism would be problematic, at best. I considered limiting the pool to featured-article writers, but we might be limiting ourselves there (people can do good work and have good judgement without authoring a FA). Thoughts? Mackensen (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether the present ArbCom cannot be expanded so as to resolve content disputes in addition to making rulings on behavioural problems. Perhaps it's a better idea to have a panel of some really knowledgeable editors with an academic background, but there is some shortage of them in the community. Furthermore, the reviewers of articles on comics and Star Wars hardly need an academic background to have some clue to their content. How they should be (s)elected is indeed a tough question and probably needs a better ideologue than myself. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)