Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:41, 20 August 2012

Revision as of 00:52, 20 August 2012

Line 2:

Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in [[WP:DR|Dispute Resolution]] about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges of DR. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any messages, just remove your name from [[User:Ocaasi/DRlist|this list]].

'''Background''': Let's start with brief overview of the ecosystem of DR. Most disputes begin on a talk page, and many are settled there. Policy specific questions are typically raised at a noticeboard, such as [[WP:BLPN]] (biographies of living persons), [[WP:RSN]] (reliable sources), [[WP:ORN]] (original research), [[WP:FRINGE]] (alternative beliefs/pseudoscience), [[WP:CP]] or [[WP:NFCR]] or [[WP:MCQ]] (copyright), [[WP:PM]] (mergers), [[WP:RM]] (page moves), [[WP:ELN]] (external links) [[WP:NN]] (notability), [[WP:ANI]] (administrator's incidents), or [[WP:AN3]] (edit warring). User conduct issues often go through [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette noticeboard]] while more serious situations warrant an [[WP:RFC/U]]. Small disputes can go through the lightweight [[WP:3O|third opinion]] process; more substantial disputes wind up at the [[WP:DRN|Dispute Resolution Noticeboard]]; even more intractable issues arrive at [[WP:MEDCOM|the Mediation Committee]]. Some complex questions can be resolved with an [[WP:RFC]]. And, If all else fails, [[WP:ARBCOM]] often step in and levy a decision. An obvious observation is that there are ''a lot'' of places where dispute resolution happens. Some of them are more extensive, better known, or more effective than others.

'''Research''': One of the first steps in improving our DR processes has been getting good data. This process has been spearheaded by [[User:Szhang_(WMF)|Steven Zhang]] whose 2012 [[User:Steven_Zhang/Fellowship|Community Fellowship]] is focused on understanding and improving DR on Wikipedia. The first observation is that there are ''a lot'' of places where dispute resolution happens. Some of them are more extensive, better known, or more effective than others. One of the key purposes of this newsletter will be to present the best research and ideas we have about which options are working and what we as a community might do about the rest of them.

'''Survey results''': In April 2012 Steven conducted a dispute resolution survey, among [[Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project/June_report|its findings]], here were some highlights:

*Over half of all respondents (and 80% of females) were older than 40.

*94% had requested assistance from a dispute resolution forum at some point, and were generally unhappy with their experiences in dispute resolution – only one in five were satisfied – however despite this 62% had participated in dispute resolution within the last year.

Line 13 ⟶ 15:

*The main problems given for dispute resolution are its complexity, its inaccessibility, and that there are too many resolution processes and not enough volunteers. Respondents want stricter action taken against problematic editors, a simplified, more accessible process where closure can be bought to a dispute quickly.

'''RecentActivity dataanalysis''': The following table summarizes activity in several DR forums for the month of May 2012.

{| class="wikitable "