Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:20, 23 May 2007

• WT:3O

Archives

Feb 2005—Feb 2007 Feb 2007—May 2007

Third opinions for COI affected editors

I am working on an essay and need to provide suggestions to COI affected editors who have organizational conflicts. The essay already suggests posting comments to an article talk page (as does WP:COI). Additionally, I am going to recommend that COI affected editors who want to write about themselves, their company or their clients do so in their own user space, and then get an experienced editor to review their work for neutrality, edit if necessary, and possibly copy the article to main space. Would this page be an appropriate place for COI affected editors to seek help as a first step, before going to WP:RFC? Jehochman (/_Contrib) 08:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good, but I'm hardly an expert on SEO. The points you made in your post here are excellent. I'm less clear on the essay itself. Does "this page" mean the essay page or WP:3O? — Athænara ✉ 06:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If it fits all the requirements for a third opinion request (see page), yes. --User:Krator (t c) 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Random Note on giving Third Opinions

I just finished re-reading Asimov's The Robots of Dawn, and in the second last chapter, the character The Chairman made me think of this Third Opinion process without a moment's doubt. I wonder if any of you has the same associations with that particular chapter of the novel. --User:Krator (t c) 22:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I read the book, but I hadn't put 2 & 2 together until I read your comment. I can see parallels between the two processes, Asimov's & ours. --Ssbohio 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me what you think

Here's my first attempt at 3O. Please tell me what you think. The page is Talk:C1 Television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talk • contribs) 15:43, May 1, 2007 (UTC)

Putting sample requests in the page?

It seems like users have a hard time writing a good neutral request, one that avoids prejudicing the issue. Would it be worth putting in a couple of fictional sample requests as models? If so, what might those requests look like? Thanks, William Pietri 20:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps use some recursive examples?

• Misplaced Pages talk:Third opinion#Putting sample requests in the page? - disagreement over including examples in the project page of the third opinion dispute resolution process. Do examples have to be fictional, or can previous requests be used as examples? 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

--User:Krator (t c) 20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a great idea. Smee 21:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Looks good to me too. Anomie 23:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There has been one example on the project page for many months:

"Example: "Talk:Style guide#"Descriptive" style guides: Disagreement about existence of nonprescriptive style guides. 12:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)"

Users seeking third opinions apparently don't notice it, so I'm in favour of improving this situation. — Athaenara 23:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Done. Smee 23:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Proposed for more formal discussion.

• I have proposed {{proposed}} This article for more formal discussion, here on the talk page. Smee 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

What exactly do you want to discuss? --User:Krator (t c) 15:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Advancing the status of this page to guideline or proposal. Smee 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

An interesting point, of which I am an opponent. My main two arguments for this position are:

1. Third Opinion as a guideline or process would make it essentially a formal process. A formal process of requesting uninvolved outside opinions already exists, WP:RFC. Redundancy is to be avoided.
2. Keeping Third Opinion informal as it currently is has its merits, because the process is clear and simple. This results in a relatively low threshold for people to come here and list a dispute. Other dispute resolution processes are regarded as more formal, and thus, more drastic measures indicating an escalated conflict. Listing a dispute early is a good thing. From the project page:

The informal nature of the third opinion process is its chief advantage over more formal methods of resolving disputes.

User:Krator (t c) 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is good, this is why I proposed it, to get some healthy, positive feedback, and polite dialogue going. Thank you for your comments, they are appreciated. It will be interesting to hear what others think. Smee 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• 3O helps defuse (or, if you prefer, diffuse) small conflicts before they become major. It also provides a less formal venue for users who are unfamiliar with the processes and policies of Misplaced Pages to seek help. This keeps the larger, formalized venues cleaner and ready for disputes that are serious, long lasting, or otherwise irremediable. Snuppy 19:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your polite and clear response. Any comments/thoughts from others? Smee 00:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC).
• There's no need for this; Misplaced Pages isn't formal. A forum where people can ask outside information is, by definition, not a guideline. This page works quite well without requiring tags at the top. >Radiant< 11:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

3O

As I understand it, 3O is for opinions when two users are involved. The question related to Cults/reports is an ongoing discussion between multiple users and is not limited to two individuals. I'm not sure that question is properly asked on this 3O. Lsi john 03:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, that was the prior intention, but this was discussed further, and determined that it is okay to use 3O for disputes with more than 2 editors. Smee 03:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• The page still says 2 users. And your question, with all due respect, a) is not worded neutrally and b) is not an accurate representation of both sides of the debate.

Furthermore, we are on break from that discussion. Attempting to get a 3O here, would seem a rather improper end-run to get a decision before the group has had time to cool off. Lsi john 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion can still continue, and neutral editors may weigh in. This may be yet perhaps the best time for a neutral, previously un-involved editor to provide a comment, because the comment itself may be taken at face value. Smee 03:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Again, all due respect, but your question does not properly reflect both sides and is worded in a biased way. Your counterparts are not claiming any report represents the entire goverment. I'm just giving my opinion that I believe your 3O request is biased, not-neutral, and inappropriate, given that people are taking a cooling off break. Lsi john 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please suggest politely here on the talk page how I should revise the 3O request? Smee 03:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• I have revised it to say imprimatur of the federal government, as opposed to use of "entire", as you had objected to. This now does accurately sum up the issue at hand. Smee 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I cannot speak for the rest of the group and I believe it would be presumptious for me to attempt it. They are on wiki break and I am not authorized to speak on their behalf.

If I were asking, in a dispute between you and me, I would ask something like "In the title List of groups referred to as cults in government reports, a) What does government reports imply? - or - b) Do the words government report suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report written by anyone in the government in the official capacity of their work? -or- c) Does government report imply that the report has any official standing with the government?

But, as I said, asking it at all, while people are on break, I feel is inappropriate. Lsi john 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Modified as per suggestion, to: Does the title of the article Groups referred to as cults in government reports suggest an official report written and released on behalf a particular branch of a government, or does it imply any report published by a federal government agency? Smee 03:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• And, I repeat, I do not speak for anyone else. Jossi has used other wording in his objections. The CRS already sent an email stating they do not consider themselves to write official government reports and are not authorized to do so without legislative mandate. So getting a 3O is picking nits, in my opinion. I'm on break. Best Regards. Lsi john 03:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, an even better wording would be :Should the email, sent by the CSR, regarding their opinion of their reports, be applied to items in this list. Specifically should reports written by the CSR be excluded from Lists of groups referred to as cults in government reports? Lsi john 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• But that is not the issue. It would be, if the article implied that lowercase "government reports" meant "official government reports". But it does not. It simply implies reports that have been published by a federal government agency. Smee 03:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• And I would agree with you, except for the original opening paragraph in that article. Although it has been removed, it still goes to demonstrate the original purpose of the list.

"Since 1978, some governments have compiled lists of groups that they have termed either cults, doomsday cults, or sects - in order to focus study on those groups within their respective countries. Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from Austria, Belgium, Canada, France(in 1995), Germany, and the United States."

Now, please respect my request for a break. thank you. Lsi john 03:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Groups listed below were cited in past government reports from... That is the definition of the article originally intended - "government reports", lowercase. Smee 04:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• government - lower case - implies official government report, not a congressional briefing paper written by an agency that already gave an email opinion. Lsi john 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Nope, that would be uppercase "Government Report". lowercase "government report", implies any government report produced by an agency of the federal government. Smee 12:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• To which I would respond, that would be an 'agency report' or a 'government document', and viola we're having the debate here instead of the article talk page. .*still on break* Lsi john 12:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just because something is labeled a "government report", does not mean that it is a report with the full faith and backing of an entire branch of the federal government, just a particular federal agency of that branch. Smee 12:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

• Or single researcher? There is no indication that the CRS reports/briefings/documents carry any backing of an entire agency. They are simply (private) research reports/briefings/documents, prepared on behalf of someone in Congress. They are RS but there is no reason to believe or claim or suggest that they represent any branch, agency, or department's view. They are merely documents, some of which contain the word report. Why are we having this discussion here? Lsi john 12:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Try RfC. --User:Krator (t c) 12:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, still waiting for a 3O as per the WP:3O page. Smee 13:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Editors or parties?

Why is this process limited to just two editors? Wouldn't is just be as useful for factions or parties of editors on two sides of one issue? --Aarktica 13:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an integral part of how this works in comparison to RFC. With two editors in dispute, a single impartial opinion is usually enough to sort the issue. I have dealt with 3O requests in which other parties emerged from the woodwork and weighed in with an opinion that goes against the 3O, which has hints of meatpuppetry about it. Such situations can get messy, drag on long after the mediator has got involved, and undermines the ethos of 3O. I am not prepared to work in that kind of situation, which should be dealt with by a more formal form of mediation or comment from more than one mediating editor. The practical difference between two-editor disputes and two-party disputes may appear small on paper but is very significant in reality. 3O provides a very worthwhile option for fairly straightforward two-editor disputes, and it has a very high success rate in my experience – it should never be weighed down by the added complexity and problems of multiple-editor/two-party disputes. Adrian M. H. 14:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks! --Aarktica 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

3Os are not a panacea

I can see that some editors ask for 3rd opinions very often. IMO, 3rd Opinions are useful when editors get stuck and need some outside assistance from time to time. If an editor keeps coming back for 3rd Opinions on every dispute, that editor may need to re-consider the way he is contributing to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• OR the editor simply is engaging in the proper channels of the conflict resolution process more often than others do. Smee 14:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
  • If an editor needs help so often with content disputes, the editor may need to re-assess why. Dispute resolution process is there to help us when we need it, not to do the work for us. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It takes two to have content disputes. And unfortunately, in many cases, certain other editors like to frame the issues not about the content in dispute, but about personal issues they have with certain editors. This is not in the spirit of WP:NPA, and is rude, inappropriate, and most unfortunate. Smee 14:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC).
• I have observed this as well. Is there a time when it crosses from a reasonable engagement of resolution into tendentious and disruptive practices?

I also notice that some editors have a difficult time framing the 3O in a neutral way which accurately reflects both sides of the question. I've seen this neutrality problem come up here in this discussion before.

Perhaps it would be worth looking into a history of 3O rulings to see if any editors have both an abnormal number of 3O requests in combination with a high percentage of 3O rulings against their position? Lsi john 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have been through this before. And neutral editors stated here, that if one or the other editor feels the 3O was phrased improperly, the neutral 3O editor will most likely look past this anyway. Smee 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

I know I don't really care if the plea isn't phrased neutrally. I can look past it and judge the issue on its own merits. In any case, the pleas posted now are much better than they were a few months ago, now that the guidelines are clear, with a clear example given. -Amatulic 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to interpret a biased request as indicative of the nature of the dispute (a controversial topic, for example) and nothing more than that. Some degree of bias is quite natural in disputes and that will sometimes show itself in the request. It is easily put aside. Adrian M. H. 18:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Repeatedly asking for a Third Opinion on related subjects might exhaust the number of available neutral editors to actually write that opinion. For example, I will no longer write a 3O on anything related to cults or Afrocentrism.

@ Lsi john 14:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC). The only thing I have noticed in Third Opinions is that the requesting party is less likely to be right. This is not a reliable statistic though - my latest opinion was in favour of the requesting party.

--User:Krator (t c) 18:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that bias is exactly the term that I would use. Bias in the question, or implying the value of one side over the other, can be seen for what it is and is generally easy to overlook. The more significant part of my comment was 'accurately reflects both sides of the question'. What I'm referring to is more of an inadvertent misrepresentation of actual question. A straw-man question, if you will, which asks the question in a way to get an obvious answer but doesn't necessarily accurately reflect the opposing argument. This can happen in good faith, if one editor has not taken time to understand the objection, or if the other editor is unable to articulate well.

Say, for example, that I want to include a citation that 'ants have legs', in an article on motorcycles. I find 20 reliable zoology sources, written by well respected zoologists, which clearly state that 'ants have legs'. A fellow editor objects both that the 'zoologists are not reliable sources for motor cycle articles' and that the 'material is not relevant'. I misunderstand his objection, and I then open a 3O asking "Is it proper and acceptable to include relevant material from reputable and reliable published sources in the article?".

Clearly this example is blatant and the misunderstanding would easily be spotted for what it is. However, in more complex situations, with an inexperienced editor who is unable to articulate his objections, a good-faith straw-man 3O could easily go unrecognized and a good-faith 3O could be misused.

I realize that this is simply part of the process, that no system is perfect, and that 3O editors are sharp enough to see through the bulk of emotional wording and viewpoints. However, in the context of my statement above, I was pondering, in general, how often this happens and at what point would AGF no longer apply if any individual editor routinely had difficulty posing an accurate 3O request. Lsi john 19:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to above neutral Third Opinioners

User:Krator, User:Adrian_M._H., User:Amatulic -- thank you all for providing such politely worded responses to this issue, in your comments above.

• User:Amatulic -- I am glad to see that you can look past however others feel that a request is worded, and go investigate the issue itself. This shows that the 3O process is working correctly.
• User:Adrian_M._H. -- Your statements that you can put aside whatever degree of bias may be present in disputes, is also reassuring and also goes to the success of this process.
• User:Krator -- The very fact that your latest opinion was in favor of a requesting party - shows that you yourself are able to provide fair opinions on different issues, and this also goes to the success of the current nature of the process.

I think that lots of 3O requests on certain topics - perhaps "cults or Afrocentrism", as suggested above - simply goes to the contentiousness of these topics, and they certainly are even in scholarly academic settings off-Misplaced Pages, and not immediately to faults of any individual editor or editors. Smee 22:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

Having given a few third opinions of the sort Jossi refers to, I'm going to give an unsolicited one here. Smee and Lsi john, you guys both seem like pretty reasonable people who have strong and very different points of view on a number of issues. I think you guys could be much better editors if you could learn to work better together. I think Jossi's right; an occasional third opinion is a good way to get past a hump. Regularly needing them is a sign that you two are missing chances to discover and solve the root problem. Please take another swing at it! And feel free to ask if you want suggestions on how to do that. With sincere regards, William Pietri 00:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I agree with jossi 100%. And with your's as well. I'll leave it to whomever is interested, to dig up the statistics of the situation. Also, for the record, I was not consulted about, or prior to, the 2 recent 3O requests where were asked for, and given. I did, however, specifically object to the wording on one, which is why it was discussed here. Like Jossi, I feel 3O's are being used to avoid the personal responsibility involved in compromise (my extra wording, not his). Lsi john 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And I was not asked about this new one either. Lsi john 19:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Smee (talk · contribs) should take a two or three month vacation from the 3O project and its talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference unhcr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Cite error: The named reference belgium1997 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
3. Cite error: The named reference canadianintelligence was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
4. Cite error: The named reference france1995 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Cite error: The named reference germany1997 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
6. Cite error: The named reference crs1979 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).