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

Revision as of 06:47, 5 September 2012

Revision as of 06:38, 6 September 2012

Line 10:

Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''!

'''Background''': Let's start with brief overview of the DR ecosystem. Most disputes begin at an article 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:NNN/N]] (notability), [[WP:ANI]] (administrator's incidents), or [[WP:AN3]] (edit warring). User conduct issues go through [[WP:WQA|Wikiquette noticeboard]] while more serious situations warrant an [[WP:RFC/U]]. Small content disputes can start with the lightweight [[WP:3O|Third opinion]] process; more substantial disputes wind up at the [[WP:DRN|Dispute resolution noticeboard]]; and even more intractable issues arrive at [[WP:MEDCOM|the Mediation Committee]]. Some complex questions can be resolved with an [[WP:RFC]]. Last, [[WP:ARBCOM]] often needs to step in and levy a decision. An obvious observation here 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 about DR. This 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. 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 improving the rest of them.