Paper detail

Evaluating arbitration and conflict resolution mechanisms in the Spanish Wikipedia

In open collaborative projects like Wikipedia, interactions among users can produce tension and misunderstandings. Complex disputes require more sophisticated mechanisms of conflict resolution. In this paper, we examine the case of the Spanish Wikipedia and its Arbitration Committee, known as CRC, over its two years of activity. We postulate that the high percentage of rejections of cases presented by non-administrators, the lack of diversity inside the committee (composed only by administrators), and the high number of cases involving administrators played a central role in its eventual downfall. We conclude that mechanisms that fail to acknowledge the ecosystem they are part of cannot succceed. Therefore, further research is needed to determine if granting more decision-making power to non-administrators may lead to more effective conflict resolution mechanisms.

preprint2014arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.