MEDCOM may be going away: will anyone notice?

[Ming]

There's a village pump proposal to shut down Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (T-H-L) on the grounds that it is little used and that nobody really wants to serve on it. Ming was completely unaware that it even exists, probably because the completely voluntary nature of the proceedings has meant that nobody that Ming had a problem with would have ever participated anyway, but in any case, there's this reason given: "Medcom accepts very few cases. The last case accepted was just over a year ago. This is mainly because “lower” forms of dispute resolution are required first, similar to ArbCom proceedings." In other words, it's simply a way to drag someone else into the kind of arguments that already take place on talk pages, which already have to have taken place. So it's just more bureaucracy, ineffectual at that.

[Kumioko]

There's a village pump proposal to shut down Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (T-H-L) on the grounds that it is little used and that nobody really wants to serve on it. Ming was completely unaware that it even exists, probably because the completely voluntary nature of the proceedings has meant that nobody that Ming had a problem with would have ever participated anyway, but in any case, there's this reason given: "Medcom accepts very few cases. The last case accepted was just over a year ago. This is mainly because “lower” forms of dispute resolution are required first, similar to ArbCom proceedings." In other words, it's simply a way to drag someone else into the kind of arguments that already take place on talk pages, which already have to have taken place. So it's just more bureaucracy, ineffectual at that.

It's even more useless than the Arbitration committee, it should have been disbanded a long time ago.

[Poetlister]

The only time that I ever tried to use it, the other party denied that there was any controversy and refused to participate. There are of course no sanctions.

[collect]

There's a village pump proposal to shut down Wikipedia:Mediation Committee (T-H-L) on the grounds that it is little used and that nobody really wants to serve on it. Ming was completely unaware that it even exists, probably because the completely voluntary nature of the proceedings has meant that nobody that Ming had a problem with would have ever participated anyway, but in any case, there's this reason given: "Medcom accepts very few cases. The last case accepted was just over a year ago. This is mainly because “lower” forms of dispute resolution are required first, similar to ArbCom proceedings." In other words, it's simply a way to drag someone else into the kind of arguments that already take place on talk pages, which already have to have taken place. So it's just more bureaucracy, ineffectual at that.

Posit that an Arb serves on it -- and then uses his "mediation" as a member of ArbCom at some point.

There is no "brick wall" between MEDCOM and ArbCom, alas. And thus opinions made in "mediation" are not only held confidential, they can be actively used by one of the judges!


There is good reason why no sane editor would succumb to such faux "mediation."

[Poetlister]

Posit that an Arb serves on it -- and then uses his "mediation" as a member of ArbCom at some point.

That's a purely hypothetical issue. Has anyone ever served on both? If it did happen, wouldn't you expect the Arb to recuse?

[collect]

Posit that an Arb serves on it -- and then uses his "mediation" as a member of ArbCom at some point.

That's a purely hypothetical issue. Has anyone ever served on both? If it did happen, wouldn't you expect the Arb to recuse?

Hypothetically, posit that the arb did not voluntarily recuse - and used their position until forced to recuse. Or, quite possibly, not hypothetically.

[Beeblebrox]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

[iii]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

God, ten years ago I ran afoul of "mediation" when a long-lost admin named Seicer (T-C-L) ran a "successful" mediation about cold fusion (T-H-L). The eventual result of that travesty was that the article was rewritten by a complete hack. As the controversy developed, it attracted the notice of Abd (T-C-L) who fell down the rabbit hole and never looked back. We're still seeing the fallout today.

Good fucking riddance.

[Cla68]

The MEDCOM could work if, at the end of a mediation session, the mediator was able to go to AN and say:

I just finished a mediation effort. Of the involved editors, I think ScrappyCat, Scarecrow, and HumongousLizard are acting in good faith and adhering to WP's guidelines and policies, especially NPOV, and are willing to compromise, and DonutHole, DoggyBone, and WarcraftManiac are not. Please topic ban the latter three. Thank you.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

I did actually criticize its governance structure, which I was horrified to discover, but I found it hard to get the one supporter who responded to even understand what I was saying. Anyway, as you said, the key issue is that it is indeed redundant and irrelevant - it's anachronistic all round.

[iii]

The MEDCOM could work if, at the end of a mediation session, the mediator was able to go to AN and say:

I just finished a mediation effort. Of the involved editors, I think ScrappyCat, Scarecrow, and HumongousLizard are acting in good faith and adhering to WP's guidelines and policies, especially NPOV, and are willing to compromise, and DonutHole, DoggyBone, and WarcraftManiac are not. Please topic ban the latter three. Thank you.

One of the big issues was that arbitration was supposed to rule on behavior while mediation, according to its own charter, was the venue that was supposed to adjudicate content disputes. There is probably still copy written on Wikipedia which claims as much. I can't be bothered to check.

It doesn't take a genius to understand that pseudonymous Wikipedia volunteers are not, as a rule, going to be equipped to mediate content disputes between experts, amateurs, and trolls with a structured discussion over the internet. Resolving disputes over content has to be done by people who are knowledgable about the subject, and verifying that the person is really knowledgeable requires something close to the savvy of a journal editor or reference librarian. Compromise, neutrality, and civility are rather beside the point when you are talking about how best to write words about actual knowledge.

[Dysklyver]

I think that content disputes are now settled by holding a contentious RFC and winding up the opposition. The party that loses their cool first is then banned at ANI and the other parties version is adopted. Dispute settled.

[Eric Corbett]

I think that content disputes are now settled by holding a contentious RFC and winding up the opposition. The party that loses their cool first is then banned at ANI and the other parties version is adopted. Dispute settled.

That sounds about right.

[iii]

I think that content disputes are now settled by holding a contentious RFC and winding up the opposition. The party that loses their cool first is then banned at ANI and the other parties version is adopted. Dispute settled.

That sounds about right.

[Kumioko]

[Katie]

iii, that meme was pretty funny. Made me laugh for a minute there.

[Anroth]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

I did actually criticize its governance structure, which I was horrified to discover, but I found it hard to get the one supporter who responded to even understand what I was saying. Anyway, as you said, the key issue is that it is indeed redundant and irrelevant - it's anachronistic all round.

ASW understands what you are saying. He is being willfully ignorant and would rather argue a different point to obfuscate that he cant actually argue against yours. Its his MO as anyone who has had to deal with him soon learns. Best way is short unambiguous sentences with only one point.

[Kumioko]

That is one of the prime problems with Wikipedia. No matter how stupid something is there's always one dipshit (or more in many cases) that will argue it's a good idea.

[Ming]

That is one of the prime problems with Wikipedia. No matter how stupid something is there's always one dipshit (or more in many cases) that will argue it's a good idea.

Welcome to the internet.

[Beeblebrox]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

I did actually criticize its governance structure, which I was horrified to discover, but I found it hard to get the one supporter who responded to even understand what I was saying. Anyway, as you said, the key issue is that it is indeed redundant and irrelevant - it's anachronistic all round.

ASW understands what you are saying. He is being willfully ignorant and would rather argue a different point to obfuscate that he cant actually argue against yours. Its his MO as anyone who has had to deal with him soon learns. Best way is short unambiguous sentences with only one point.

Yep. that’s clearly what he’s doing, if you look further up the same thread you can see a similar exchange with me, wherein he tries repeatedly to say that the whole proposal is about “not liking how some people mediate” when it is very clearly about medcom not doing anything at all. No matter how clear you are he just doubles down with his glaringly incorrect statements. It’s filibustering and nothing more, hopefully when the thread is closed it will be rightfully ignored.

Not that chairperson TranporterMan’s counter proposal makes any more sense. He seems like a generally ok guy but he can’t seem to to see the forest through the trees when it comes to this issue. For those of you who don’t want to search for it: He basically proposes that we give this self-appointed-do-nothing committee more authority and power. If he could just write a policy doing as much I imagine he would do so, and the other “committee members” would vote to support it on their closed mailing list.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

I did actually criticize its governance structure, which I was horrified to discover, but I found it hard to get the one supporter who responded to even understand what I was saying. Anyway, as you said, the key issue is that it is indeed redundant and irrelevant - it's anachronistic all round.

ASW understands what you are saying. He is being willfully ignorant and would rather argue a different point to obfuscate that he cant actually argue against yours. Its his MO as anyone who has had to deal with him soon learns. Best way is short unambiguous sentences with only one point.

Ah, I hadn't really come across him before. That sounds like good advice, thanks.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

It’s a typically depressing conversation of an entrenched WP process that has outlived its usefulness, but I knew it would be going in.

What’s ridiculous is the way it’s few adherents are going to great lengths to make it sound like the last five years or so are just a temporary “slump” and it will suddenly be relevant again any second now. All I am proposing is that we admit the obvious, that it is redundant and irrelevant. I didn’t even get into how deeply flawed it is otherwise because that isn’t the point but it would be equally valid to propose closing it because it is entirely out of step with how WP is supposed to work. For example:
-The committee decides on its own membership
-They pick their “chairperson” in an entirely opaque process on their own privileged mailing list
-They wrote their own policy on what they do and how they do it

In short, they are operating entirely outside of community input or supervision.
But again, I didn’t make this focus because they don’t actually do anything anyway.

I did actually criticize its governance structure, which I was horrified to discover, but I found it hard to get the one supporter who responded to even understand what I was saying. Anyway, as you said, the key issue is that it is indeed redundant and irrelevant - it's anachronistic all round.

ASW understands what you are saying. He is being willfully ignorant and would rather argue a different point to obfuscate that he cant actually argue against yours. Its his MO as anyone who has had to deal with him soon learns. Best way is short unambiguous sentences with only one point.

Yep. that’s clearly what he’s doing, if you look further up the same thread you can see a similar exchange with me, wherein he tries repeatedly to say that the whole proposal is about “not liking how some people mediate” when it is very clearly about medcom not doing anything at all. No matter how clear you are he just doubles down with his glaringly incorrect statements. It’s filibustering and nothing more, hopefully when the thread is closed it will be rightfully ignored.

Not that chairperson TranporterMan’s counter proposal makes any more sense. He seems like a generally ok guy but he can’t seem to to see the forest through the trees when it comes to this issue. For those of you who don’t want to search for it: He basically proposes that we give this self-appointed-do-nothing committee more authority and power. If he could just write a policy doing as much I imagine he would do so, and the other “committee members” would vote to support it on their closed mailing list.

Yes, I re-read it last night, and I saw that “not liking how some people mediate” thing when you made it very clear that was not the case. His tactics do seem pretty clear, and I'm sure they'll be clear to whoever judges the consensus too (well, I hope).

As for TranporterMan, yes, I think he's a good guy. And I do actually feel for him, as he's put a lot of effort into what is essentially his baby. But the suggestion of giving more power to a self-selected and self-governing group is so obviously out of touch.

[Cla68]

It doesn't take a genius to understand that pseudonymous Wikipedia volunteers are not, as a rule, going to be equipped to mediate content disputes between experts, amateurs, and trolls with a structured discussion over the internet. Resolving disputes over content has to be done by people who are knowledgable about the subject, and verifying that the person is really knowledgeable requires something close to the savvy of a journal editor or reference librarian. Compromise, neutrality, and civility are rather beside the point when you are talking about how best to write words about actual knowledge.

Saying that a mediator needs to be really knowledgeable about the subject in question would make a mediation forum unworkable, because the parties involved could reject the mediator by claiming that he/she doesn't know the subject well enough. That's an easy trap to fall into. Instead, a mediator simply guides the debate between the parties, heads off circular discussions, and makes suggestions about compromise and extraneous details. You don't have to be an expert on the topic to be able to do that. A mediator will be more effective, of course, if they review the available sourcing as much as they're able to (which shouldn't be that difficult since WP emphasizes secondary sources).

The approach taken by the ArbCom in the past wasn't to rule, at least openly, on which editors were "correct" in their presentation of information, but who was behaving properly and who wasn't. That's the same approach the mediator would take. In my time on WP, it usually appeared to be fairly clear which editors had an agenda and which ones didn't. The ones without an agenda were usually more willing to compromise, were less enraged if someone placed a "NPOV" tag at the top of "their" article, didn't revert-war as much, didn't get defensive and acerbic, were less likely to personalize the disagreement, and weren't as bothered by ambiguity in the article (BTW, an aversion to ambiguity is often a tell-tale sign of an authoritarian personality).

[Poetlister]

The ones without an agenda were usually more willing to compromise, were less enraged if someone placed a "NPOV" tag at the top of "their" article, didn't revert-war as much, didn't get defensive and acerbic, were less likely to personalize the disagreement

I think we could have guessed that.

and weren't as bothered by ambiguity in the article (BTW, an aversion to ambiguity is often a tell-tale sign of an authoritarian personality).

If the function of an article is to give the reader information, surely ambiguity is not good because the reader may not get the information.

[Eric Corbett]

and weren't as bothered by ambiguity in the article (BTW, an aversion to ambiguity is often a tell-tale sign of an authoritarian personality).

If the function of an article is to give the reader information, surely ambiguity is not good because the reader may not get the information.

I was wondering about that. Who apart from Cla68 believes that ambiguity is a good thing?

[Disgruntled haddock]

Functioning mediation would be a good thing and TransporterMan is a good mediator, but the state of dispute resolution on Wikipedia is shoddy all around. DRN almost never works, mostly because one party gives up (or can’t be bothered to participate in the first place). Seems really bureaucratic, and even when it works it’s clear that many of the DRN volunteers have no mediation experience. Third opinions actually work okay, but they’re so loose and unstructured that they’re totally unsuitable for larger or more complex disputes.

[Midsize Jake]

Who apart from Cla68 believes that ambiguity is a good thing?

Good question. The Wikipedia article on the subject isn't bad, and it even implies (somewhat successfully) that ethnocentrism and authoritarian tendencies are linked, which might explain why Mr. '68 is interested in the subject. However, I suspect he might be equating "NPOV" (or lack of bias in general) with ambiguity, something most of us would probably disagree with.

Also (and at the risk of going way off-topic), the word "ambiguity" is usually preceded by the word "moral" when referring to how past events are treated by historians or critics, so while I'm admittedly guessing here, maybe that's what he's referring to - IOW, if there's an article about something like a massacre or a bombing campaign, for example, some folks would argue that to be truly unbiased there has to be some level of moral ambiguity in describing the motives of the people doing the killing (i.e., there must have been some reason beyond pure evil or pure bloodlust). To some degree that's actually the traditional/conventional way of writing about military history, but this is now being challenged by "realist" historians, which if I'm not mistaken has been causing some friction among various interested parties.

[Beeblebrox]

If we’re discussing ambiguity in encyclopedic writing, no that is usually going to be a bad thing, but sometimes unavoidable.

Ambiguity in arts and entertainment is often a very good thing, the works of Stanley Kubrick being one of my personal favorite examples.

Moral ambiguity is a whole other discussion. Bombing of Dresden in World War II (T-H-L) being a prime example. A horrifying firebombing of tens of thousands of civilians (and Kurt Vonnegut could’ve been killed) but against an enemy that was also waging total war with a side of genocide.

We’re getting pretty here, if we’re going down this hole it should probably be split to another thread.

[Jim]

...However, I suspect he might be equating "NPOV" (or lack of bias in general) with ambiguity, something most of us would probably disagree with.

Also (and at the risk of going way off-topic), the word "ambiguity" is usually preceded by the word "moral" when referring to how past events are treated by historians or critics, so while I'm admittedly guessing here, maybe that's what he's referring to...

See, that's what I love about reading this site. We can discuss whether the statement:

...an aversion to ambiguity is often a tell-tale sign of an authoritarian personality...

is ambiguous...

Personally, I think more use should be made of 'new' terms like amtriguous, for when the 'bi' just isn't accurate. It would have helped here, for instance...

[Midsize Jake]

Personally, I think more use should be made of 'new' terms like amtriguous, for when the 'bi' just isn't accurate.

We should probably be careful about which neologisms we promote, though. In this case, there may be an ulterior motive - if this word is accepted into the lexicon, it implies that the word "ambiguous" (which actually covers any number of different meanings or interpretations of something) has a disputed meaning. People who want to push the idea that language is inherently "unreliable" can then say, "the word 'ambiguous' is, in itself, ambiguous," and use this as evidence that objectivity itself is either a hopelessly impossible goal or just so much post-modernist nonsense. That could, theoretically, affect the ability of people to mediate various kinds of disputes, or even the ability of people to oh-so-cleverly try to steer forum threads back to their original topic in some way.

[iii]

Saying that a mediator needs to be really knowledgeable about the subject in question would make a mediation forum unworkable, because the parties involved could reject the mediator by claiming that he/she doesn't know the subject well enough.

You're confusing the current culture of Wikipedia where people can use any excuse to get out of discussions they don't want to have and a proposal that actually requires deference to expertise.

It's true that to do this, Wikipedia would have to abandon its dogmatic commitment to pseudonymity to make sure that knowledgeable people really are the ones figuring out who is right and who is wrong in content disputes. But after that's done, it's simply a matter of forcing the people without the expertise into following the authority.

Let's say that a climate scientist and Cla68 got into an argument because Cla68 argued that the climate scientist was not tolerating enough ambiguity in their contention that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A decent mediator would instruct Cla68 to defer to the scientist's expertise.



And, because I like to pretend it is 2013...

[Eric Corbett]

Saying that a mediator needs to be really knowledgeable about the subject in question would make a mediation forum unworkable, because the parties involved could reject the mediator by claiming that he/she doesn't know the subject well enough.

You're confusing the current culture of Wikipedia where people can use any excuse to get out of discussions they don't want to have and a proposal that actually requires deference to expertise.

It's true that to do this, Wikipedia would have to abandon its dogmatic commitment to pseudonymity to make sure that knowledgeable people really are the ones figuring out who is right and who is wrong in content disputes. But after that's done, it's simply a matter of forcing the people without the expertise into following the authority.

Let's say that a climate scientist and Cla68 got into an argument because Cla68 argued that the climate scientist was not tolerating enough ambiguity in their contention that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A decent mediator would instruct Cla68 to defer to the scientist's expertise.



And, because I like to pretend it is 2013...

It’s not quite as easy as that, as it’s usually not difficult to find another expert who disagrees with first one.

[iii]

Saying that a mediator needs to be really knowledgeable about the subject in question would make a mediation forum unworkable, because the parties involved could reject the mediator by claiming that he/she doesn't know the subject well enough.

You're confusing the current culture of Wikipedia where people can use any excuse to get out of discussions they don't want to have and a proposal that actually requires deference to expertise.

It's true that to do this, Wikipedia would have to abandon its dogmatic commitment to pseudonymity to make sure that knowledgeable people really are the ones figuring out who is right and who is wrong in content disputes. But after that's done, it's simply a matter of forcing the people without the expertise into following the authority.

Let's say that a climate scientist and Cla68 got into an argument because Cla68 argued that the climate scientist was not tolerating enough ambiguity in their contention that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. A decent mediator would instruct Cla68 to defer to the scientist's expertise.



And, because I like to pretend it is 2013...

It’s not quite as easy as that, as it’s usually not difficult to find another expert who disagrees with first one.

Not in the scenario I outlined, but no doubt there are instances where legitimate expert disagreement can happen.

I haven't seen anything approaching that high level of argument on Wikipedia in my time there, but that may be due to which topics I investigate most carefully.

[Cla68]

I think there's a lot more ambiguity in life than people are willing to admit. In my own chosen field of Wikipedia, military history, there is plenty of ambiguity, but people who are unable or unwilling to understand the "other side" of a historical event (usually the losing side) may not think there is much ambiguity at all.

We've discussed it before, but most people have a narrative that runs through their mind as their senses perceive their life and their environment. It's like they're watching their own personal movie. Ambiguity, depending on the subject and context, can be disconcerting and disorienting.

Anyway, to get back on topic, a good mediator would need to be able to navigate adversarial parties through the ambiguity that their disagreements generate. If the parties aren't willing to compromise, then it doesn't work. In order to force them to compromise, WP's mediators would need to have the authority to banish those editors from topic areas who impede progress on content discussions. Probably, the more stubbornly authoritarian editors would be the ones who get banned. Would some "fringe" views end up in articles? Yup, to some extent, but that's the way WP works, or is supposed to work. You've probably noticed with examples that we've discussed in this forum over the years, that the only way the mini-cabals in WP keep "fringe" views out of their articles is by basically taking them over and getting people banned who don't toe the line. If WP is going to allow this, then a mediation forum has no chance of success.

[Eric Corbett]

I really think that this is a misuse of the word ambiguous. Everything is open to multiple interpretations, but that doesn't necessarily make it ambiguous. That the Sun rose this morning is unambiguous, but I may interpret that event differently from you depending on whether or not I believe in the existence of Ra.

[Poetlister]

If there is legitimate disageeement among experts, that should be stated clearly and unambiguously in the article.

If there is disageeement among editors about whether there is legitimate disageeement among experts, a good mediator may be able to help each side see the other's POV.

[lonza leggiera]

…

Personally, I think more use should be made of 'new' terms like amtriguous, for when the 'bi' just isn't accurate. It would have helped here, for instance...

I can hardly wait to come across a phrase with exactly 18 different meanings so I can trot out "amduodevigintiguous". But it seems to me what's really needed is a term like "ampolyguous" to mean "open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning." Oh, wait.

[Jim]

...But it seems to me what's really needed is a term like "ampolyguous" to mean "open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning." Oh, wait.

Yes - I wasn't being serious. I'm still not. Nevertheless, the page you link to does list more than one (similar) definition (...is an unfinished football game ambiguous because it's "not clear or decided"?), and folks with an "authoritarian personality" may not be entirely comfortable with even a hint of ambiguity in ambiguous - who knows? I, on the other hand, do think ambiguous should probably be somewhat ambiguous, just because that's more fun.

[Poetlister]

I know someone who's ambidextrous but he doesn't actually have two right hands.

[Kumioko]

I know someone who's ambidextrous but he doesn't actually have two right hands.

For what it's worth I am ambidextrious. I can do everything with my left hand I can do with the right but my penmanship isn't great left handed. Thanks to 40 or so years of driving a stick shift I can also use all 4 limbs to do different things at the same time like a drummer.

[Beeblebrox]

I know someone who's ambidextrous but he doesn't actually have two right hands.

For what it's worth I am ambidextrious. I can do everything with my left hand I can do with the right but my penmanship isn't great left handed. Thanks to 40 or so years of driving a stick shift I can also use all 4 limbs to do different things at the same time like a drummer.

Well since we’re sharing, I actually am a drummer. But kind of in the way that people who haven’t published anything in years will tell you they are a writer. And I was ambidextrous as a small child until my first grade teacher demanded that I pick one hand and stick with it. (she got that wrong by the way, thanks Mrs. Baas)
And we have 4 vehicles in our household and 3 of them have manual transmissions.

[Kumioko]

I know someone who's ambidextrous but he doesn't actually have two right hands.

For what it's worth I am ambidextrious. I can do everything with my left hand I can do with the right but my penmanship isn't great left handed. Thanks to 40 or so years of driving a stick shift I can also use all 4 limbs to do different things at the same time like a drummer.

Well since we’re sharing, I actually am a drummer. But kind of in the way that people who haven’t published anything in years will tell you they are a writer. And I was ambidextrous as a small child until my first grade teacher demanded that I pick one hand and stick with it. (she got that wrong by the way, thanks Mrs. Baas)
And we have 4 vehicles in our household and 3 of them have manual transmissions.

Cool, never really learned an instrument, always regretted that. I feel like I would have made a great violinist!

Yes, manual is the way to go. Not only does it make me feel more one with the vehicle it's also a great modern day antitheft device...at least here in DC...in Alaska, probably not so much.

[collect]

I know someone who's ambidextrous but he doesn't actually have two right hands.

For what it's worth I am ambidextrious. I can do everything with my left hand I can do with the right but my penmanship isn't great left handed. Thanks to 40 or so years of driving a stick shift I can also use all 4 limbs to do different things at the same time like a drummer.

Summer job as a blueprint folder -- I can read printing in four orientations, and could write left-handed - backwards. Not incredibly difficult.

[Beeblebrox]

The discussion has now been open for 23 days, I think it is ripe for closing. By the numbers the result is clearly to mark it historical, but filibustering by supporters has bloated the discussion so it may ot be a slam-dunk even though the committee obviously has not done anything useful for years.

[Kumioko]

The discussion has now been open for 23 days, I think it is ripe for closing. By the numbers the result is clearly to mark it historical, but filibustering by supporters has bloated the discussion so it may ot be a slam-dunk even though the committee obviously has not done anything useful for years.

I hope the arbcom is next.

[Poetlister]

The discussion has now been open for 23 days, I think it is ripe for closing. By the numbers the result is clearly to mark it historical, but filibustering by supporters has bloated the discussion so it may ot be a slam-dunk even though the committee obviously has not done anything useful for years.

I hope the arbcom is next.

Jimbo might intervene in that case, which could be amusing.

[Kumioko]

The discussion has now been open for 23 days, I think it is ripe for closing. By the numbers the result is clearly to mark it historical, but filibustering by supporters has bloated the discussion so it may ot be a slam-dunk even though the committee obviously has not done anything useful for years.

I hope the arbcom is next.

Jimbo might intervene in that case, which could be amusing.

True and I would love to be a fly on that wall. The community would run Jimbo out the door!

[Beeblebrox]

Well, the same logic obviously wouldn’t apply. People are generally aware of arbcom, it does still take some cases, and it’s members are elected by the community. Although it is worth noting that one of the defenses against marking it historical was that Jimbo had something to do with founding it and it is therefore sacrosanct. I found that argument so weak I didn’t bother responding to it at all.

[Kumioko]

Well, the same logic obviously wouldn’t apply. People are generally aware of arbcom, it does still take some cases, and it’s members are elected by the community. Although it is worth noting that one of the defenses against marking it historical was that Jimbo had something to do with founding it and it is therefore sacrosanct. I found that argument so weak I didn’t bother responding to it at all.

Nor should you. To be honest the statement that Jimbo started it is all the more reason to bury it.

[Ming]

To be honest the statement that Jimbo started it is all the more reason to bury it.

Well, really one need not be so contrary. Back in the early days when one might have hoped that editors might act like reasonable adults instead of being vectors to infect the place with the internet's childish obstinance and rancor, the notion of having some people help work through disagreements was not unreasonable. Of course, "unreasonable" having become the default attitude, it's obviously pointless now.