Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark/Statement

RegentsPark

In my opinion, Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia and the success of our project is measured by the quality of our content (largely how accurate and complete our information is) each time a user types a search term and peruses the Wikipedia article that pops up. The impact of a decision or action on content should therefore be the prime consideration for any editor who cares about Wikipedia. But content does not appear magically, it is created by a vast network of editors through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in assuring the accuracy and completeness of the information we provide. Arbitration is not therefore merely a process of discovering who is right or wrong or good or bad or what's fair or unfair, but rather it is an act of intervention in the collaboration and conflict process in a way that helps us perform our content mission better. It is an important role because open issues and conflicts need to be resolved so that the project can move forward but it is also a limited one since consensus is primarily decided by the community (based on our policies and guidelines which, too, are decided through a collaborative consensus building process).

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. I am not easily upset. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. Other than a dislike for tendentious editing and the belief that dealing with these sorts of editors is where we're doing a poor job, I don't have an antipathy toward any sort of editor whether they be content producing mavens, agenda driven pov producers (as long as they're not overly tendentious), wikispace focused editors, or just regular editors (and that's where I place myself) trying to add the little they know to Wikipedia. I believe all of these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment and, properly managed, add value to the encyclopedia.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choices amongst the various candidates. Because of the holiday week where I live, I may be a bit slow in responding, but I will try to answer every question put to me.

I've been editing here since late 2007 and became an admin in February 2009. I'm well (really well!) over 18 and will willingly disclose my identity to WMF if elected. I haven't edited under any other names. Thank you.