These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible.
After around two and half years on the committee and watching article development in various areas around the 'pedia (I've spent time at FAC, GAN and DYK as well as resurrecting the Core Contest), I'm jotting some thoughts about what I perceive our priorities are with respect to wikipedia as a whole and its evolution over the next few years, and how a well- or poorly-functioning committee will impact on that. I deliberated for a while on whether to run again, but felt better once I saw some of the candidates running. I am also keen to see how we go developing content, such as running the Core Contest again in 2013, so just not enough hours in the day to carry on arbitrating as well.
I see wikipedia at a crossroads. The novelty of being newfangled is wearing off as evidenced by dropoff in new editors. I think the increasing rigour of editing rules has a role in this but this is essential in the evolution of the 'pedia. In its place, wikipedia is traversing a grey area where the goal is status as an Established and Reliable online Encyclopedia. We are making progress here but we are vulnerable.
As our status (and google rankings) are cemented, we become more vulnerable to coordinated attempts to subvert or warp content. This is happening. This is real.
Our RfC process is in need of an overhaul. Unless there is a clear consensus, or unless someone has really structured an RfC properly (which generally means ignoring or compromising its comment/support/no oppose structure which leaves folks all talking past each other), it is little more than a stumble between a dispute and Arbitration.
As an aside, Arbitration Enforcement is a challenging area in need of more eyes - it was tough and time-consuming. more hands on deck are needed here.
With our policies on anonymity and how it impacts on discussion of advocacy and paid editing, we have no choice but to analyse editing behaviour including content on its own merits.
What this means is this - an arbitration committee which restricts itself solely to non-content related judgements (e.g. edit warring, incivility, sockpuppetry) leaves wikipedia wide open to coordinated gaming by entities seeking to influence content. we are profoundly compromised in our ability to deal with this.
What I tried to do as an arbitrator is to at least examine content-related editing behaviour by antagonists in a dispute. Note that this is not ruling on content but at least attempting to examine whether editors were following policies on Reliable Sourcing, Undue Weight, original Research and Synthesis, and actually supporting edits with sources which say what the edits say.
Finally, many of these also need planning and structure when referred back to the community - big time, with not many folks interested in pursuing this. More hands and eyes needed in these when they come up.
I was intending to run again to continue discussing this with my fellow arbitrators, however my lack of free time means that I really need to give something away for the time being.
The need to make some sort of analysis of how editors add content is such a major component of protracted disputes that it is a major component of how I will vote. I hope others will read this and take heed......
