User talk:Heimstern/ArbCom
We need to put more encyclopedia AS an encyclopedia. Yeah, the head editor at NYT has to deal with personell issues and firefighting, but she also has an opinion on the quality of workproduct goint out the door, what parts of the paper are better than others, etc. How much does NYB worry about article quality? TCO (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how it's productive to single out any particular arbitrator to discuss here, as this essay is a criticism of ArbCom as an institution rather than as individual members. But to answer your question anyway, I happen to think Newyorkbrad is greatly concerned with our article quality, especially as it comes to BLP. I think most if not all of the current arbs are, though I disagree with the approach the committee as a whole takes to it. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't single him out with any malice. If anything the opposite. That he's well respected and known. I don't know HOW concerned they are with article quality they are. I just don't see it, here it, find it in things they're working on. Saying "yeah they all care about it" is kind of empty phrase. Do they care about it the way a CEO cares about hitting his quarterly numbers? WRT BLPs that seems all liability concern, not "quality" in the sense of enough content and better writing. I still think there is a nugget of insight in what I said. I think the top boss at NYT has much more a feel for every aspect of the craft of putting that paper together (not to say she can do every job, and her main quality will be on the writing side). I think more of that here and less time and concern on conduct would be beneficial. Not sure how to get there. But...I think there is a good point in there. :) TCO (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be sure, I wish the arbs generally spent more time building the encyclopedia. But then again, they have a pretty busy job just by arbitrating (mailing list and all that crap), so that probably contributes.
- Less concern with conduct is definitely an ideal I'd like to see happen, though really, I'd list that as a community concern more than a committee one. What gets to me is how much we've let our grudges take over Wikipedia: people spend time sniping at each other instead of writing the encyclopedia. (Of course, sometimes they're sniping over writing the encyclopedia, and that's a matter that's still hard to resolve.) I wish I knew how to cut off the endless drama before it ever got to ArbCom; I think that would achieve a lot of what you're talking about. MFDing ANI has always been tempting, but the problem is that we do need a place to report certain incidents that need attention (stopping those incidents from happening in the first place seems like futile idea on Wikipedia). So, I don't have a solution to the problem I see. But I do agree that all the time we spend on conduct would be better spent on the encyclopedia. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't single him out with any malice. If anything the opposite. That he's well respected and known. I don't know HOW concerned they are with article quality they are. I just don't see it, here it, find it in things they're working on. Saying "yeah they all care about it" is kind of empty phrase. Do they care about it the way a CEO cares about hitting his quarterly numbers? WRT BLPs that seems all liability concern, not "quality" in the sense of enough content and better writing. I still think there is a nugget of insight in what I said. I think the top boss at NYT has much more a feel for every aspect of the craft of putting that paper together (not to say she can do every job, and her main quality will be on the writing side). I think more of that here and less time and concern on conduct would be beneficial. Not sure how to get there. But...I think there is a good point in there. :) TCO (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)