http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...pute_resolution

Let me just say this.

ArbCom had a case regarding whether the country on an island to the west of Great Britain should be called "Ireland" or "Republic of Ireland." At the end of the case, no decision was made regarding that question.

ArbCom has a case regarding whether "West Bank" or "Judea and Samaria" should be used to describe the land Israel captured from Jordan in the 1967 Six Day War. The case will end with topic bans all around but without a decision on this point.

ArbCom has a case regarding whether the former Yugoslavia should be called "Macedonia" or "Republic of Macedonia." That case will end without a decision on that central question.

Sure, it's great that ArbCom should topic-ban or site-ban incorrigible edit warriors. But if a dispute over content has reached ArbCom, wouldn't it be an essential part of dispute resolution to resolve the dispute? It doesn't need to be cut and dried, but a finding of fact that consensus exists among editors and sources to call the country "X" instead of "Republic of X" would put the dispute to rest, at least for a while. Arbitrators need not use their own expertise to make decisions, but after reading the evidence they should issue such a finding, and even if the finding is objectively wrong, at least they have made a decision and the involved parties can find something else to squabble over.

What am I missing here? Why are the kool-aid drinkers so squeamish about giving some group of uninvolved editors, whether Arbcom or a yet-to-be-created committee, the right to resolve intractable content disputes and put them to rest?

History. ArbCom was put in place to be Jimbo's dispute resolution alternative; the site was getting too big for him to spend the time resolving disputes. In those days editor (mis)behaviour and content dispute was the same thing - sanction the problematic editor and the content dispute sorted itself by the remaining editor(s). Jimbo tended (as he still does) not to concern himself with the details of the content dispute, owing to the likely lack of knowledge regarding the subject - a rare example of him acknowledging his limitations. Thus the ArbCom has no basis to settle the actual content problems other than removing or restricting those editors who behaviour has violated policy.

This no longer works, as the site is now huge and there are very many individuals who are willing to take up the cudgels of sanctioned editors and keep articles in a perpetual state of edit war - and this would happen even if there wasn't off-Wiki campaigns on behalf of the various interest groups. There are even subjects, I am sure, where there is a constant civil edit war between groups who do not violate policy and thus cannot be resolved by the current system of ArbCom because there is nothing in their remit to constrain editors who stay within policy yet still effect disruption. The Cabal was particularly effective in appearing to remain within the rules while influencing articles in which they held interests - it is as much their arrogance in allowing themselves to be found to be in violation of policy that means some of the membership have been placed under sanction or had their rights removed than ArbCom or others "cracking down" on abuses (though this and the last ArbCom should be recognised in that they were finally willing to do so when such occurrences were presented to them.)

I doubt whether this ArbCom will involve itself in becoming the (pen)ultimate Content Dispute Resolution forum. They may be involved in its formation, because they appear to be the only neutral grouping of sufficient authority that can put in place a system that would be knowledgeable yet unbiased enough to not be subject to the same POV gaming that the disputants have been practicing on the content.

Jclemens has got the right idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req...iew_by_Jclemens

It's anti-wiki.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a mistake. But that just means I think the founding principles of Wikipedia are mistaken.

The founding principles of Knol are better. But then, the implementation of Knol is worse.