Anthony wrote: > Sounds good, but how good is OTRS at handling these issues? Are there any > statistics available as to what percentage of OTRS complainers are satisfied > with the resolution? Does OTRS provide any escalation for people who aren't > satisfied with their initial results?
In general, I think that OTRS does an excellent job, and they do provide escalation (to me sometimes, or to Mike Godwin). I'm unaware of anyone making it through the OTRS process and not being (more or less) satisfied, with only one exception - a biography that I learned of recently (prefer not to say which one out of risk of accidentally causing a news headline) where OTRS had appropriately fixed the article but over time (2, maybe 3 years) the "errors" had crept back in. (I put "errors" in scare quotes not to suggest that they were not falsehoods, but rather to emphasize that what was going on, in my opinion, was not innocent error, but maliciousness.) > Another good idea, but how would an article be accepted as "well balanced"? > You just can't write about a topic which has any level of controversy and > come up with an article which everyone will agree is "well balanced". No > matter what you write, someone is going to have a problem with it, so > marking an article as "well balanced" is more likely to increase the > complaints rather than reduce them. This is contrary to all my experience. Even controversial topics can be well balanced. Just as a side note - in my experience, virtually no BLP complaints that I have heard in person were invalid. Even highly controversial people (or perhaps, *especially* highly controversial people) aren't worried about the controversies being accurately reported. They are concerned that they be reported fairly and in reasonable proportion to their overall history. In my opinion, we fail miserably at that in far too many cases, and just because no one has complained yet, this does not mean that we are doing a good job. Let me repeat that in a different way, for emphasis: I think that a great number of our biographies, and bad in a particular way. Minor controversies are exploded into central stories of people's lives in a way that is abusive and unfair, and games players have learned how to properly cite things and good people have a hard time battling against violations of WP:UNDUE. This is true even in cases where the subjects haven't complained, and it is a problem not just in terms of our ethical responsibilities to subjects of biographies, but also in terms of our ethical responsibilities to our readers, who depend on us for neutrality. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
