Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Carcharoth/Questions: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) |
Carcharoth (talk | contribs) →Questions from User:Hestiaea: refactor the references to the user talk page follow-up to make it more readable |
||
Line 131:
:Thank-you for these questions. I am currently working my way through the general questions and should get to the individual questions towards the end of this week. If there are any unforeseen delays, I'll add an update here. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC) <small>Briefly, though, my initial response to question 1 would largely be in line with what Newyorkbrad said [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=524048713 here] in response to that question. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 21:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)</small>
▲***Per [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hestiaea&diff=prev&oldid=524540858 this], I'll be responding here on the more general issues raised in the follow-up. Also relevant is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions&diff=prev&oldid=524541846 this] exchange on Newyorkbrad's questions page and the question asked there. The question on openness and transparency is a good one that deserves a considered response, so I'll be coming back to this one after answering some of the later questions. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 12:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
'''A''': OK, I've now looked around a bit more and there are some things that need to be said (and I apologise for not realising this earlier). While I read through your talk page (back on 22 November) I saw the comments where you said you are writing a book about Wikipedia. I also saw that you created your account only quite recently (September 2012). I didn't realise the full implications of all this until today (I had been concentrating more on answering the other questions on this page). The issues are now clearer in my mind, especially after answering a question further down this page about something that took place three years ago. What worries me here is that you did not state up front in your questions to me and others in these elections that you are writing a book about Wikipedia, though you did mention the book in your fourth question to Newyorkbrad. What you need to do if you want to write about openness and transparency in Wikipedia culture, is tell people when you approach them whether or not you intend to use the material in your book.<p> Having got that out of the way, and to address your questions, my response to the first two questions still stands (I agree with what Newyorkbrad said, you are transparently basing your questions on actual events). On openness and transparency in general, as it relates to ArbCom, it depends entirely on the context. I would in general prefer a more open culture, one where old history (including some of the off-wiki matters) could be debated openly without old grudges and conflicts being stirred up again, but that doesn't really seem to be possible. It may have something to do with the openness itself, and that 'anyone' can edit and that (on Wikipedia at least) the old history is always there and can be brought up again at the click of a button. Which is why people can write books about it. How to handle embarrassing but not strictly confidential matters? My view is that Wikipedia and ArbCom should be more open in handling such matters, though more of these matters ''are'' freely available and openly debated than you might realise (take a look at several of the later arbitrator resignations in the 2009 and 2010 period, for example). [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 13:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
| |||