Financial Accounting Information for Decisions 7th

Edition Wild Test Bank

Link full:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wgYhXjhjVIUlPWsZVF
KxRhE44Tl9_QYK/view?usp=sharing
News:
An Arbitration Committee is a binding dispute resolution panel of
editors, used on several projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. The first
project to use an arbitration committee, and the most widely covered of
these, is the English Wikipedia, the first project where such a structure
was used, and this is the committee mainly covered in this article. Each
of Wikimedia's projects are editorially autonomous and independent.
Therefore, over time some other Wikimedia projects have established
arbitration committees, while others have not. Arbitration committees,
where they exist, are established by a project's editors, and are usually
elected by their community in annual elections. As well as serious
disputes, they often address misconduct by administrators, access to
various advanced tools, and a range of "real world" issues related to
harmful conduct, when these arise in the context of a Wikipedia project.

Arbitration committees generally have the authority to impose binding

sanctions, and also to determine which users have access to special
permissions.

The first such committee was created by Jimmy Wales on December 4,

2003, as an extension of the decision-making power he formerly held as
owner of the site.[1][2] The committee acts as a court of last resort
(described in the media variously as 'quasi-judicial' or a Wikipedian
'High/Supreme Court', though the Committee states that it is not, nor
pretends to be, a court of law in the formal sense) for disputes among
editors. It has decided several hundred cases in its history.[3] Members
of the Committee are appointed by Wales either in person or email
following advisory elections; Wales generally chooses to appoint
arbitrators who were among those who received the most votes.[4]

The Committee has been examined by academics researching dispute

resolution, and also reported in public media in connection with various
case decisions and Wikipedia-related controversies.[2][5][6]

Contents
1 History
2 Attention and controversies
3 Arbitration Committees on sister projects
4 References
History
In October 2003, as part of an etiquette discussion on Wikipedia, Alex
T. Roshuk, then legal adviser to the Wikimedia Foundation, drafted a
1,300 word outline of mediation and arbitration. This outline evolved
into the twin Mediation Committee and Arbitration Committee, formally
announced by Jimmy Wales on December 4, 2003.[2][7] Over time the
concept of an "Arbitration Committee" was adopted by other
communities within the Wikimedia Foundation's hosted projects.
When founded, the Committee consisted of 12 arbitrators divided into
three groups of four members each.[1][8] As of 2008, it had decided
around 371 conduct cases, with remedies varying from warnings to
bans.[9][10][not in citation given]

Attention and controversies

A statistical study published in the Emory Law Journal in 2010 indicated
that the Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring
the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.[2] The same
study also found that despite every case being assessed on its own
merits, a correlation emerged between the types of conduct found to
have occurred and the remedies and decisions imposed by the
Committee.

In 2007, an arbitrator using the username Essjay resigned from the

Committee after it was found that he had made false claims about his
academic qualifications and professional experiences in a New York
Times interview.[11][12][13] Also in 2007, the committee banned
Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Carl Hewitt from
editing the online encyclopedia.[14] In May 2009, an arbitrator who
edited under the username Sam Blacketer resigned from the Committee
after it became known that he had concealed his past editing in obtaining
the role.[5]

In 2009, the Committee was brought to media attention as a result of its

decision to ban "all IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of
Scientology and its associates, broadly interpreted", as part of the fourth
Scientology-related case.[3][15] Such an action had "little precedent"[3]
in the eight-year history of Wikipedia and was reported on several major
news services such as The New York Times, ABC News, and The
Guardian.[3][15][16] Satirical news-show host Stephen Colbert ran a
segment on The Colbert Report parodying the ban.[17]

In 2015, the Committee received attention for its ruling pertaining to

Gamergate, in which one editor was banned from the site indefinitely
and several others were banned from topics relating to Gamergate or
gender.[18]

In June 2015, the committee removed advanced permissions from

Richard Symonds, an activist for the British party the Liberal
Democrats.[19] Symonds had improperly blocked a Wikipedia account,
and associated its edits with former Chairman of the Conservative Party
Grant Shapps,[20] and leaked this to The Guardian.[19] Shapps denied
ownership of the account, calling the allegations "categorically false and
defamatory".[21] Symonds said in an interview that he stands by his
actions.[22]

A 2017 study found that the Committee's decision-making was mostly

unaffected by extra-legal factors such as nationality, activity/experience,
conflict avoidance, and time constraints. The same study found that the
Committee's decision-making was affected much more by time
constraints than that of conventional courts.[2