Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Intro

This is a separate subpage of Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards on the idea of editorial arbitration. There have been discussions on Wikipedia talk:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards concerning the adoption of a quality-based method of resolving editorial disputes, but they are now hard to find, with all the archiving. So let's develop this subpage. 172 06:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wrong "facts"

I'm sorry to see this page empty. My main concern is that Wikipedia, especially for technical information, contains a lot of very authoritatively stated facts that are simply wrong. This would not be such a problem if every Wiki user was aware of this fact, but I lot of people use it for research and may be pulling down false information.

Does anyone have any suggestions? --Selket 16:24, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't see this earlier. There is a page somewhere that is a guide to using Wikipedia for research, but I don't remember the name. Maurreen 05:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Purpose?

I am not yet clear what, exactly, an Editorial Arbitrator would do that isn't covered elsewhere. From what I gather it seems they would be a team of fact-checkers, something already covered by the Fact/Reference Checking Team. The way I see it is that once there is a final and recognized new set of standards, it would be this board of editors that would take up the arbitration of disputes on a case by case basis, taking into consideration only the items that would apply based on the Encyclopaedic Standards without regard to the persons involved. But, to some extent, this is what mediators and arbitrators already do. What would the criteria be to invoke the Editorial Board? | Aequo 19:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no editorial board. The idea is just an idea. Maurreen 05:29, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I know, I'm doing a little exploration on the topic, and trying to get a feel of what others are thinking. Aequo 01:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussion is on the talk page. You also might want to check in at the forum linked above. Doesn't look like anyone else is following this page. Maurreen 06:16, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)