User:Isaacl/Community/Content dispute resolution toolbox
The following techniques can be used to mitigate some of the difficulties with managing mostly unmoderated online discussions in a large group across many time zones.
Round-robin discussion phase
[edit]The round-robin discussion phase consists of multiple rounds. A moderator determines when the previous round is complete and a subsequent round should be opened. Each editor can make one comment per round. Other than minor typographical or grammatical corrections, editors cannot alter their comments.
Moderators use their discretion to determine when to proceed to the next round, and when to exit the round-robin phase of discussion.
Rationale
[edit]Many discussions can be flooded by a small number of vocal participants. This can increase animosity and prevent other voices from being heard, particularly given the disparate time zones of the Wikipedia community. By throttling comments, rapid escalation of contention can be dampened, and there is a greater opportunity for moderating opinions to be expressed.
Specifically for brainstorming discussions, a round-robin phase will give each interested party an opportunity to weigh in. This provides incentive for editors to prioritize their ideas, and reduces the incentive to skip to discussing ideas rather than brainstorming new ones.
Pros and cons summary of options
[edit]Structure the discussion to produce a summary of each option under discussion, with a list of pros and cons for each. Where the con of an option is simply the mirror image of the pro of another, generally prefer to list the pro and omit the con.
Once the summary is ready, participants can discuss their preferred option in terms of the pros and cons and their relative weights. A closer can see the importance placed on each by the partcipants and thus balance their support accordingly.
Rationale
[edit]Discussions often entangle many aspects together. Isolating individual advantages and disadvantages provides a way to make discrete progress towards greater understanding of the options. Having an ongoing summary also makes it easier for new or returning participants to catch up on the latest state of discussion, thereby saving time. A final discussion to determine the preferred option can focus on the pros and cons, and a closer can evalute the discussion within the context of pros and cons.
Revisit respite
[edit]During discussion, participants can reach a consensus for a "revisit respite": the issue under discussion should only be revisited if a significant new consideration is introduced, or a specific amount of time (a "respite period") has passed. Interested parties can ask the discussion closer if the issue should be revisited before the respite period is over. The closer can delegate this responsibility to someone else. If neither the closer nor any delegates are available, then the decision shall be made by a discussion among uninvolved administrators at the administrators' noticeboard.
Rationale
[edit]By providing a semi-binding conclusion to a dispute, there is incentive to work towards a best-compromise solution. This also alleviates the fatigue of having to discuss a topic repeatedly and the consequences of participant attrition.
