Jump to content

Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Mediation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Terri Schiavo case | Mediation
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ed Poor (talk | contribs) at 23:50, 20 June 2005 (→Mediator's Summary Section: reformat, to fit TOC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Ground Rules

  • Mediator: Ed Poor
  1. Only those parties who have agreed to Mediation may post here.
  2. I will refactor this page, so that the top unresolved issues are always at the head of the page.
  3. As much as possible, please add all comments to the bottom. Try to avoid "threaded" discussions.
  4. "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

Those that have voted for mediation

Others who seem to favor mediation

Mediator's Summary Section

Significance of court findings

The two main positions seem to be:

  1. Whatever the courts rule is true so Wikipedia articles should go along with that
    • Unstated corollary: if a court ruling is overturned, Wikipedia's "view of the truth" should make the same flip-flop
  2. Courts can rule any way they like, but it's just another point of view

Concern that contributor voices might be stifled

  1. On-going, day-to-day changes to the article will keep happening and can't be stopped unless the page is locked.
  2. Having a separate room could hurt more than it helps

Personal imperfection of the Mediator

  1. I may not be the best qualified person for this job, but I've done rather well in the past. Shall we give a go?

Length of time for issues to remain open

  1. Some want half week to a week.
  2. Is this long enough?

Discussion

"I've been asked by ghost to step in as Mediator. How do you feel about that? And where (if anywhere) shall we discuss all this?"

Hi. I feel fine about it.Probably on Talk:Terri Schiavo but I'm not attached. FuelWagon 23:09, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Now on my watchlistFuelWagon 20:22, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Ed. I asked you because: a)Yours was the only name I recognized on the list of Mediators at the time (Mgm hadn't made the list yet). b) I'd seen you be involved in controversial subjects before that seemed to have reached resolution. I have two concerns we should vent now. First, you were sucked into a controversial subject (Gitmo) on which your neutrality was questioned. Second, there have been heavy edits to the NPOV page recently, of which you've been a part. I mention this now only because I want to give you the oppurtunity to address them now, rather than have them jack-in-the-box later.
We need help with developing a standard for the Terri Schiavo page, and that's been seen as a moving target. Please help us pin it down. I'm concerned that discussing a standard here stifles the voice of the larger editing base. But that may also give us room to reach agreement. If I have to choose, I'd go with Talk:Terri Schiavo. Wikipedia is, and should be open.--ghost 12:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's what I'm here for. And by the way, does everyone agree to the ground rules? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:53, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
No problems with the ground rules here. Anyone else?--ghost 21:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


I'm okay with the ground rules, but here's a thought that I'd like you to consider, Ed: although wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, I would like you to agree to recuse yourself from editing the article until your appointment is completed for the following reasons:
  • It removes completely any appearance of impropriety when you are in the position of making decisions (as a mediator must do) that must arise if at the same time you remain active in the editing process which is in fact being mediated. This is not an accusation of any sort, but just an appeal to a common sense position of neutrality.
  • I don't mean to criticize, but the article has enjoyed some first rate contributions, not only in content, but in form and style. The one edit you made didn't, in my opinion, rise to that standard, which I suspect was less editing prowess than it was new territory insofar as your exposure to the particular project. After some time spent around the group (and also in light of request #1) I would welcome your contribution.
  • Because of the complexity, sensitivity, and volatility of the subject, we simply need fewer chefs just now, not more.
Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and this edit from 3 days ago will be my last edit. Good suggestion, thanks! -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:58, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
Would it help if the same applied to those in this Mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:10, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I think this is the place to have this discussion. Having voted on mediation signifies a committment to the quality of the product, and if one can't even sign on with an opinion on mediation, how can we take seriously their contribution to the mediation much less the article? Moreover, the signal-to-noise ratio on the Talk page is far too low to try and keep up with this segment of the discussion while trying to separate the wheat from the chaff there.
Duckecho 21:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One addendum. I've noticed some of our users are more or less active during the week/weekend. Therefore, how long should we leave subjects open? I week is too long; 3-4 days?--ghost 22:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
How long have subjects been in need of mediation? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 23:09, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)
I'm retired and have no life, consequently I'm here every day. And, I have to keep the camel's nose out from under the tent. It has been my observation that although traffic is definitely higher during the week, rarely do three days go by that all of the major players haven't weighed in at one point or another. Three to four sounds about right. No more than four, though—that seems an eternity here. Duckecho 23:10, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Terri_Schiavo_case/Mediation/Archive_3&oldid=15525909"