CZ:Charter/Brainstorm: Difference between revisions
imported>Russell D. Jones |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "signals intelligence" to "signals intelligence") |
||
(127 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{CZ-Charter-drafting}} | |||
__TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
=Easier way to see structure?= | |||
''This section has now been ported over to [[CZ:Charter drafting]] and is kept here for archival purposes only. '' | |||
{{col-begin}} | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
{| | |||
|- valign=top | |||
| | |||
*Mission statement | |||
*Fundamental policies | |||
**Real names | |||
***Pseudonyms | |||
***External reviewers | |||
**Objectivity | |||
**Expertise | |||
**Collaboration | |||
**Fair Governance | |||
**Being Bold | |||
*License | |||
**Original Citizendium content | |||
**Content originating elsewhere | |||
*Languages | |||
*Electorate | |||
*Ratification of this charter | |||
**Entry into force of this charter | |||
**Transition period | |||
*Amending this charter | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
*Individual roles in the community | |||
**Content creators | |||
***Authors | |||
***Editors | |||
****Approving content | |||
***Workgroups | |||
****Structuring content | |||
****Oversight of Editors | |||
****Granting External Expert status | |||
***External Experts | |||
**Administrators | |||
***Technical | |||
***Financial | |||
***Legal | |||
**Special positions | |||
***Constables | |||
****Oversight of Professionalism | |||
****Chief Constable | |||
***Task Managers | |||
****Approval Manager | |||
*****Oversight of Approval | |||
*****Granting External Expert status in absence of active Editors | |||
****Editorial Personnel Managers | |||
*****Granting Editor status | |||
{{col-break|width=33%}} | |||
*Institutional roles in the Community | |||
**Leadership | |||
***CEO/Academic President | |||
***COO/Academic Provost | |||
***Executive Committee | |||
****Election | |||
****Appointing | |||
*****Appointing Administrators | |||
*****Appointing Constables | |||
*****Appointing Task Managers | |||
****Oversight | |||
*****Oversight of Administrators | |||
*****Oversight of Constables | |||
*****Oversight of Task Managers | |||
****Partnering with other organizations | |||
***Editorial Council | |||
****Election | |||
****Oversight of Workgroups | |||
|} | |||
=Structure= | |||
#This section has been superseded by the [[#Easier way to see structure?]] section above and is only maintained for archival purposes. | |||
#This section should only contain headings and subheadings. | |||
#Add headings, reorder them, move them to other places in the hierarchy, but do not delete them right away. | |||
#Text shall be filled in by a different mechanism once we have agreed on this structure, though draft phrasings for each of these headings can be started in the [[#Content]] section and linked from here. | |||
#For discussion of this structure, please use [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2958.0.html this dedicated Forum thread]. | |||
==Mission statement== | |||
[[#Mission statement 2]] | |||
==Fundamental policies== | |||
===Real names=== | |||
====Pseudonyms==== | |||
====External reviewers==== | |||
===Objectivity=== | |||
===Expertise=== | |||
===Collaboration=== | |||
===Fair Governance=== | |||
===Being Bold=== | |||
==License== | |||
===Original Citizendium content=== | |||
===Content originating elsewhere=== | |||
==Languages== | |||
==Electorate== | |||
==Ratification of this charter== | |||
===Entry into force of this charter=== | |||
===Transition period=== | |||
==Amending this charter== | |||
==Individual roles in the community== | |||
===Content creators=== | |||
====Authors==== | |||
====Editors==== | |||
=====Approving content===== | |||
====Workgroups==== | |||
=====Structuring content===== | |||
=====Oversight of Editors===== | |||
=====Granting External Expert status===== | |||
====External Experts==== | |||
===Administrators=== | |||
====Technical==== | |||
====Financial==== | |||
====Legal==== | |||
===Special positions=== | |||
====Constables==== | |||
=====Oversight of Professionalism===== | |||
=====Chief Constable===== | |||
====Task Managers==== | |||
=====Approval Manager===== | |||
======Oversight of Approval====== | |||
======Granting External Expert status in absence of active Editors====== | |||
=====Editorial Personnel Managers===== | |||
======Granting Editor status====== | |||
===Institutions=== | |||
====Editor-in-Chief==== | |||
====Executive Committee==== | |||
=====Appointing===== | |||
======Appointing Administrators====== | |||
======Appointing Constables====== | |||
======Appointing Task Managers====== | |||
=====Oversight===== | |||
======Oversight of Administrators====== | |||
======Oversight of Constables====== | |||
======Oversight of Task Managers====== | |||
=====Partnering with other organizations===== | |||
====Editorial Council==== | |||
=====Oversight of Workgroups===== | |||
=====Electing the Executive Committee===== | |||
==Sections that have been put up here but should not go into the final document== | |||
''Please sign your vote for deletion. Before moving things back from here, please ask for other opinions on the Forum.'' | |||
===Signed Articles=== | |||
[[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:This is a policy for the Ed Council to decide. The charter should be limited to either an inclusion or exclusion, if it needs to discuss this at all. | |||
::If for no other than PR reasons, it should be explicit that this is a Content Council (I am going to use new names for new ideas--doesn't have to be these but I strongly recommend change) decision. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 18:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm lost. How is a signed article a "content council?" Jones 19:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::Parenthetical phrase may have affected readability: "Content Council decision". A PR advantage of the Charter is to make the public aware that some additional things, which the competition doesn't offer, may be available -- it can be an incentive to participate. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 19:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Preamble=== | |||
Too much overlap with [[#Mission statement]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:Agreed [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] | |||
===Rights and responsibilities=== | |||
preliminarily replaced with [[#Roles in the community]] to reduce overlap with [[#Decision-making]] (which is also going to be restructured). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Managers=== | |||
replaced with [[#Task Managers]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Administration=== | |||
replaced with [[#Administrators]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Decision-making=== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Content==== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Site-wide===== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Community management==== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Behavioral===== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Governance==== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Dispute resolution===== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Policy==== | |||
removed during merger between [[#Decision-making]] and [[#Roles in the community]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Robots=== | |||
perhaps too detailed for the charter; should be treated like authors (or possibly even as experts in some limited domains like specific types of wiki formatting) in the relevant policy documents. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Appointing the Editor-in-Chief=== | |||
overlap with [[#Electing the Editor-in-Chief]]. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Electing the Editor-in-Chief===== | |||
replaced by simple "Election". --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Electing the Editorial Council===== | |||
replaced by simple "Election". --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Individual roles in the Community=== | |||
distinction between individual and institutional has not been followed consequently anyway (e.g. Workgroups were listed under individual, CEO under institutional), so it is perhaps best to get rid of it. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Institutional roles in the Community=== | |||
distinction between individual and institutional has not been followed consequently anyway (e.g. Workgroups were listed under individual, CEO under institutional), so it is perhaps best to get rid of it. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Leadership=== | |||
replaced by Governance. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Roles in the community=== | |||
added to fundamentals. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Content creators=== | |||
added to collaboration. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Special positions=== | |||
not needed after adding roles to fundamentals. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Governance=== | |||
overlap with Fair governance. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===External reviewers=== | |||
replaced with External partners, to widen the scope of this point. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Task Managers=== | |||
not needed after moving roles to fundamentals. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Oversight of Professionalism=== | |||
not needed after putting roles into fundamentals. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Granting External Expert status in absence of active Editors=== | |||
replaced by Granting External Expert status. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Behavior=== | |||
now contained in Professionalism. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Granting External Expert status=== | |||
perhaps not necessary to define this in the charter. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Interim guidance=== | |||
now contained in the lede of Transition period. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===From the Management Committee section=== | |||
:all now phrased in, except for robots. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Appointing===== | |||
======Appointing Administrators====== | |||
======Appointing Constables====== | |||
======Appointing Task Managers====== | |||
=======Approval Manager======= | |||
========Oversight of Approval======== | |||
=======Editorial Personnel Managers======= | |||
========Granting Editor status======== | |||
========Granting External Expert status======== | |||
=======Robots======= | |||
=====Oversight===== | |||
======Oversight of Administrators====== | |||
======Oversight of Constables====== | |||
======Oversight of Task Managers====== | |||
======Partnering with other organizations====== | |||
===From the administration section=== | |||
:all now phrased out. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
=====Technical===== | |||
=====Financial===== | |||
=====Legal===== | |||
===Communications=== | |||
now contained in Management Committee. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
===Advertisements=== | |||
now incorporated into objectivity. Current phrasing pasted below. --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) | |||
The Citizendium will not sell advertisements. There may be unobtrusive non-profit sponsorship statements, but sponsors will have no editorial influence over the project, and enforceable, adequate oversight of this rule will be in place. Similarly, no grants that make specific editorial demands will be accepted. | |||
---- | |||
=Content= | |||
==General points== | ==General points== | ||
*The encyclopedia author's task is to objectively recount what is already established and known about each topic, not to offer his or her own determinations about it. The composition of Citizendium articles is guided by "Editors", who have demonstrated expertise in what is established and known about the topics they oversee. | *The encyclopedia author's task is to objectively recount what is already established and known about each topic, not to offer his or her own determinations about it. The composition of Citizendium articles is guided by "Editors", who have demonstrated expertise in what is established and known about the topics they oversee. | ||
Line 25: | Line 309: | ||
*Everyone is a lay person nearly everywhere | *Everyone is a lay person nearly everywhere | ||
*Provide quality and naming standards. | *Provide quality and naming standards. | ||
*it should be made clear that authors are expected to be objective from the beginning, and identify possible weakness in sources when something is out of their own deep expertise. | |||
==Mission statement== | ==Mission statement== | ||
The Citizendium is an online environment in which | |||
knowledge is structured collaboratively by polite | |||
contributors who use their real names and recognize expertise. | |||
Citizendium's mission is to be an actively cultivated [[repository]] of knowledge, which emphasizes [[objectivity]], [[recognition of expertise]], and providing a [[systematic survey]] of knowledge with meaningful linkage among topics. It provides a living, evolving framework in which new knowledge sources, amd means of presentation, are introduced by community consent. Its community of Citizens has policies managed transparently by its Citizens, who are not anonymous but take responsibility by using their [[real name]]s. | Citizendium's mission is to be an actively cultivated [[repository]] of knowledge, which emphasizes [[objectivity]], [[recognition of expertise]], and providing a [[systematic survey]] of knowledge with meaningful linkage among topics. It provides a living, evolving framework in which new knowledge sources, amd means of presentation, are introduced by community consent. Its community of Citizens has policies managed transparently by its Citizens, who are not anonymous but take responsibility by using their [[real name]]s. | ||
Line 41: | Line 327: | ||
<!--''Hover over the {{H:title|Yes, these!|marked terms}} to see a brief definition. A detailed explanation of their meaning in the context of the charter is available by clicking on them, which leads to the [[#Appendix]].''--> | <!--''Hover over the {{H:title|Yes, these!|marked terms}} to see a brief definition. A detailed explanation of their meaning in the context of the charter is available by clicking on them, which leads to the [[#Appendix]].''--> | ||
# Citizendium is a collaborative {{H:title|An evolving network of theoretical concepts and practical experience.|[[#Knowledge|knowledge]]}} project that emphasizes {{H:title|Contributions based on observations that are not biased by emotion or opinion.|[[#Objectivity|objectivity]]}} and {{H:title|An expert in this sense is someone familiar with both the depth and breadth of a field.|[[#Recognition of expertise|recognition of expertise]]}}. The broad audience is assumed to want professional (or knowledgeable) expertise and confidence in their information. | # Citizendium is a collaborative {{H:title|An evolving network of theoretical concepts and practical experience.|[[#Knowledge|knowledge]]}} project that emphasizes {{H:title|Contributions based on observations that are not biased by emotion or opinion.|[[#Objectivity|objectivity]]}} and {{H:title|An expert in this sense is someone familiar with both the depth and breadth of a field.|[[#Recognition of expertise|recognition of expertise]]}}. The broad audience is assumed to want professional (or knowledgeable) expertise and confidence in their information. ''Update: [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2930.msg25713.html#msg25713 an alternative phrasing suggested on the forum].'' | ||
# Citizendium provides a living, evolving {{H:title|A framework in which knowledge is hosted for reuse.|[[#Repository|repository]]}} for the {{H:title|Putting the information in context.|[[#Systematic presentation|systematic presentation]]}} of knowledge sources and ideas. | # Citizendium provides a living, evolving {{H:title|A framework in which knowledge is hosted for reuse.|[[#Repository|repository]]}} for the {{H:title|Putting the information in context.|[[#Systematic presentation|systematic presentation]]}} of knowledge sources and ideas. | ||
# Citizens commit themselves to transparent governance and responsible authorship by using their {{H:title|The name as it appears on official documents like passports.|[[#Real names|real names]]}}. | # Citizens commit themselves to transparent governance and responsible authorship by using their {{H:title|The name as it appears on official documents like passports.|[[#Real names|real names]]}}. | ||
Line 100: | Line 386: | ||
::Let me take a different example, where the request was overtaken by events. I knew a peacekeeping expert with an international organization, whose policy absolutely forbade public statements by its staff other than in the public relations office. The individual's current employment status and past experience was verifiable. I saw it as an opportunity to get material from a true expert. As it happened, the person was transferred to an area with no real Internet access, so the matter became moot. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Let me take a different example, where the request was overtaken by events. I knew a peacekeeping expert with an international organization, whose policy absolutely forbade public statements by its staff other than in the public relations office. The individual's current employment status and past experience was verifiable. I saw it as an opportunity to get material from a true expert. As it happened, the person was transferred to an area with no real Internet access, so the matter became moot. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::From past experience Howard, when a loophole exists it will be exploited, mostly for ill. Just how many users on CZ are using pseudonyms and how many are active contributors? This I would like to know.{{UnsignedShort|Meg Ireland}} | :::From past experience Howard, when a loophole exists it will be exploited, mostly for ill. Just how many users on CZ are using pseudonyms and how many are active contributors? This I would like to know.{{UnsignedShort|Meg Ireland}} | ||
::::I suppose the Constabulary can tell us. Don't misconstrue; I would see this as an extremely rare case. If a government, for example, is repressive enough that it will take action for political commentary, that government is apt to have the | ::::I suppose the Constabulary can tell us. Don't misconstrue; I would see this as an extremely rare case. If a government, for example, is repressive enough that it will take action for political commentary, that government is apt to have the signals intelligence capability to detect the source of messages. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::In that case would not the solution be that the user ask a registered user in another country to add material for them to the article? After all if a government is that repressive enough and technologically sophisticated they would they trace the anonymous user anyway.{{UnsignedShort|Meg Ireland}} | :::::In that case would not the solution be that the user ask a registered user in another country to add material for them to the article? After all if a government is that repressive enough and technologically sophisticated they would they trace the anonymous user anyway.{{UnsignedShort|Meg Ireland}} | ||
Line 115: | Line 401: | ||
:How about just author accounts, editors ''have'' to have real names.. but the Constabulary will be empowered to make exceptions to this policy. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | :How about just author accounts, editors ''have'' to have real names.. but the Constabulary will be empowered to make exceptions to this policy. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::What will be the oversight for the constabulary? With the Editorial Council, you'd need a majority vote. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ::Yes, author accounts are okay with me. What will be the oversight for the constabulary? With the Editorial Council, you'd need a majority vote. [[User:Russell D. Jones|Russell D. Jones]] 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | ||
::::What's the purpose of a pseudonym if everyone knows it? [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I am dead against both, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. IMO It undermines the real names policy when exceptions are made. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I might be amenable to NO pseudonyms. I am concerned that there might be some perfectly good reasons to be anonymous. So far I can't think of any. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::::I stumbled on one today. It's for a Eduzendium project for Dr. Badget's [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:UTHSCSA_Internal_Medicine_residency_-_resident_1 students]. I do remember some upset when it was created, but the okay came from the very top for constables to create that account. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::I'm glad you remembered that; I saw no reason for the pseudonyms. No other CZ project needed them, and if the student identities are that sensitive, they can stay on a university wiki such as Russell's. It certainly had zero community input. The project didn't produce much, did it? [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::I could be amenable to NO pseudonyms as well. There is a strong case to be made for equality and democracy. If you are in such a predicament that writing on CZ would somehow physically endanger you, then you have bigger problems than editing a wiki and probably shouldn't. {{UnsignedShort|Russell D. Jones}} | |||
:::::On further consideration, I think I've joined the NO pseudonym side. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::::::I agree with Russell's comment above that the eligible ones probably have other things to do, particularly when we stress that CZ is not a place for advocacy. If, however, the information they would add here were to be made available elsewhere (under anonymity, if they wish), it could still be incorporated here by someone else who uses their real name. This also means that the existing anonymous accounts would have to be discontinued accordingly (Did they ever contribute anything? I will probably never know, and so be it.). --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
====Parallel issue==== | |||
We do need to make provisions for external reviewers who do not have and do not want user accounts. In the usual academic process, their names are fully known and verified to the journal editor, who, in our process, would be the Approvals Manager. If a classic journal process were followed, however, their names would not be made known to the specific author, although they might be made available to approving authors. Most journals do publish an annual list of all their reviewers' names. | |||
In some cases, using the journal process, the reviewer offers to become known to the author and interact; I've done this both as a reviewer and author. | |||
It's important, for several reasons, to consider this for Citizendium. First, with our editor shortage, it is possible to get external reviews from people who will do it as a favor to the editor or author, but simply don't want to become Citizens. Milt, I believe, has had this done while he was acting as Editor; I did it as an Author, before there was an approvals manager and for articles that were approved a year later when we had enough Editors. | |||
As Daniel and others have mentioned, we might actually choose to introduce a '''supplementary''' academic-style approval process, which could encourage some publish-or-perish academics to contribute content that they can cite. We'd have to have a reviewer mechanism to do this. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:I'm okay with allowing this to be a Editorial Council decision. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::At the Charter level, we simply need to make sure we do not forbid the appropriate body, presumably the Editorial Council, to make such a decision. Having too-restrictive language on "real names only" in the Charter could be a problem. I'm not suggesting the Charter specifically set up the mechanism, although I wouldn't be averse to mentioning it, perhaps in a preamble or even a supplementary note. | |||
::There has been concern that some things may sound like press releases, but, at some level, we are going to need press releases, or at least Internet visibility, of how we diffeentiate. If, for example, some academics would like to see a formal peer review process in a wiki, knowing we are looking at it could be the key to recruiting them. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Yes, there is a difference between saying that "We have a real names policy" and "We only allow real names." I agree we should leave some room for issues that might, for some unforeseen reason, become necessary. I also have no problem with the editorial council deciding those limitations for pseudonyms, but the number of people who would know who that pseudonym is should be minimized - perhaps the EIC can be the only one that knows with the constabulary as oversight. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
(undent) Well, let's not drift on this point. A journal review process does not use pseudonyms, but strictly restricts knowledge of real names and uses anonymity in interactions. Let's discuss pseudonyms under pseudonyms and anonymity/controlled knowledge under this heading. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:A journal review process does not use pseudonymity--it uses anonymity. Howard, I think you're confusing an editorial board with the peer review process. In the external peer review process, the names of the reviewers are never known to the public or the authors. Sometimes, I imagine, a member of the editorial board may do a peer review but we'd never know, would we? If CZ is going to request external review, it should be with the caveat that the names of the reviewers not be used. Thus there is no problem here with the real names policy. (Also, I'm not yet sold on this external review idea) Jones 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
::I know journal review doesn't use pseudonymity. I've been both a reviewer and been reviewed. With some journals, the editors gave reviewers the option, once an article had been approved, to interact with constructive suggestions to the author. | |||
::Most of the journals I know do publish an annual list of all reviewers; what stays confidential is the assignment of editors to specific articles. | |||
::I'm not suggesting we decide on external review; I simply want the Charter not to preclude it. The controlled anonymity of review is a quite different matter than pseudonymity. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::I'm in agreement with that (no exclusion). Jones 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 21:46, 22 June 2024
![](http://s9.addthis.com/button1-share.gif)
Easier way to see structure?
This section has now been ported over to CZ:Charter drafting and is kept here for archival purposes only.
Structure
Mission statementFundamental policiesReal namesPseudonymsExternal reviewersObjectivityExpertiseCollaborationFair GovernanceBeing BoldLicenseOriginal Citizendium contentContent originating elsewhereLanguagesElectorateRatification of this charterEntry into force of this charterTransition periodAmending this charterIndividual roles in the communityContent creatorsAuthorsEditorsApproving contentWorkgroupsStructuring contentOversight of EditorsGranting External Expert statusExternal ExpertsAdministratorsTechnicalFinancialLegalSpecial positionsConstablesOversight of ProfessionalismChief ConstableTask ManagersApproval ManagerOversight of ApprovalGranting External Expert status in absence of active EditorsEditorial Personnel ManagersGranting Editor statusInstitutionsEditor-in-ChiefExecutive CommitteeAppointingAppointing AdministratorsAppointing ConstablesAppointing Task ManagersOversightOversight of AdministratorsOversight of ConstablesOversight of Task ManagersPartnering with other organizationsEditorial CouncilOversight of WorkgroupsElecting the Executive CommitteeSections that have been put up here but should not go into the final documentPlease sign your vote for deletion. Before moving things back from here, please ask for other opinions on the Forum. Signed ArticlesRussell D. Jones 17:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
PreambleToo much overlap with #Mission statement. --Daniel Mietchen 18:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Rights and responsibilitiespreliminarily replaced with #Roles in the community to reduce overlap with #Decision-making (which is also going to be restructured). --Daniel Mietchen 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Managersreplaced with #Task Managers. --Daniel Mietchen 23:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Administrationreplaced with #Administrators. --Daniel Mietchen 23:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Decision-makingremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Contentremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Site-wideremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Community managementremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Behavioralremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Governanceremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Dispute resolutionremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Policyremoved during merger between #Decision-making and #Roles in the community. --Daniel Mietchen 23:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Robotsperhaps too detailed for the charter; should be treated like authors (or possibly even as experts in some limited domains like specific types of wiki formatting) in the relevant policy documents. --Daniel Mietchen 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC) Appointing the Editor-in-Chiefoverlap with #Electing the Editor-in-Chief. --Daniel Mietchen 15:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Electing the Editor-in-Chiefreplaced by simple "Election". --Daniel Mietchen 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Electing the Editorial Councilreplaced by simple "Election". --Daniel Mietchen 21:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Individual roles in the Communitydistinction between individual and institutional has not been followed consequently anyway (e.g. Workgroups were listed under individual, CEO under institutional), so it is perhaps best to get rid of it. --Daniel Mietchen 16:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Institutional roles in the Communitydistinction between individual and institutional has not been followed consequently anyway (e.g. Workgroups were listed under individual, CEO under institutional), so it is perhaps best to get rid of it. --Daniel Mietchen 16:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Leadershipreplaced by Governance. --Daniel Mietchen 16:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Roles in the communityadded to fundamentals. --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Content creatorsadded to collaboration. --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Special positionsnot needed after adding roles to fundamentals. --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Governanceoverlap with Fair governance. --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC) External reviewersreplaced with External partners, to widen the scope of this point. --Daniel Mietchen 16:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Task Managersnot needed after moving roles to fundamentals. --Daniel Mietchen 16:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Oversight of Professionalismnot needed after putting roles into fundamentals. --Daniel Mietchen 16:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Granting External Expert status in absence of active Editorsreplaced by Granting External Expert status. --Daniel Mietchen 16:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC) Behaviornow contained in Professionalism. --Daniel Mietchen 22:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Granting External Expert statusperhaps not necessary to define this in the charter. --Daniel Mietchen 23:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC) Interim guidancenow contained in the lede of Transition period. --Daniel Mietchen 23:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC) From the Management Committee section
AppointingAppointing AdministratorsAppointing ConstablesAppointing Task Managers=Approval Manager===Oversight of Approval===Editorial Personnel Managers===Granting Editor status====Granting External Expert status===Robots=OversightOversight of AdministratorsOversight of ConstablesOversight of Task ManagersPartnering with other organizationsFrom the administration section
TechnicalFinancialLegalCommunicationsnow contained in Management Committee. --Daniel Mietchen 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Advertisementsnow incorporated into objectivity. Current phrasing pasted below. --Daniel Mietchen 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC) The Citizendium will not sell advertisements. There may be unobtrusive non-profit sponsorship statements, but sponsors will have no editorial influence over the project, and enforceable, adequate oversight of this rule will be in place. Similarly, no grants that make specific editorial demands will be accepted. ContentGeneral points
Mission statementThe Citizendium is an online environment in which knowledge is structured collaboratively by polite contributors who use their real names and recognize expertise. Citizendium's mission is to be an actively cultivated repository of knowledge, which emphasizes objectivity, recognition of expertise, and providing a systematic survey of knowledge with meaningful linkage among topics. It provides a living, evolving framework in which new knowledge sources, amd means of presentation, are introduced by community consent. Its community of Citizens has policies managed transparently by its Citizens, who are not anonymous but take responsibility by using their real names. It is a knowledge ecology that will grow at a sustainable rate, emphasizing quality of information over raw quality. As a portal and a jumping off point for experts and novices alike in the pursuit of understanding, its content will default to the level of a college undergraduate, but may have subarticles identified as targeted from an elementary education to an advanced professional levels. The broad audience is assumed to want professional expertise, and to consist largely of knowledge workers and trainees in knowledge working professions Its content will bear identifiers giving the confidence of experts on the material. Content experts have verified real-world expertise. Depending on the content type, the review may be open collaboration, academic-style anonymous review, or signed opinion content by experts. Citizendium is not intended to be a forum for advocacy, and, where there are differences in informed opinion, the differences will be described unemotionally, and with context to help the reader make informed decisions. The writing process is not limited to rigid sourcing, but can contain synthesis and contextualization acceptable to subject experts, and that are also plausible to a broad editorial review.
Citizendium fundamentals
(undent) I think we're going a bit overboard with the whole definitions sideshow, to the point of it being a distraction from the main text of the charter. I think it can also serve to deter newcomers, who are likely to be bewildered or even alienated by all the idiosyncratic terminology. Shamira Gelbman 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
AppendixThis section expands on the brief definitions available in the mouse-overs and contains detailed definitions of the key terms used in the charter, highlighting their use at Citizendium. KnowledgeIn the encyclopedic part of Citizendium, this will mean structured information that has been independently verified. In other parts, information can be deposited if it is presented such that it can be independently verified.
ObjectivityInformation presented objectively is based on expert knowledge, which includes giving the context and justification for substantially supported views of the topic. When multiple responsible views exist, enough information must be given that the reader can understand the merits and weaknesses of the positions. There is no requirement to present every minority view in depth, although deprecated views may be identified. Recognition of expertiseEach discipline has its own criteria; not even all academic fields have identical standards for expert level. Citizendium recognizes that verifiable experience in a field can be gained outside a campus.
Expertise will be respected. Expertise will be recognized through publications (including CZ), credentials, or employment. The Editorial Council will be empowered to establish other means by which expertise may be recognized. RepositoryA flexible environment for the storage of systematically retrievable and (“browsable”—find a better word) information of many types. Systematic representationBeyond objectivity, the information is presented in context. This may include subarticles that provide a less detailed introduction or advanced nuances of the topic. Compare-and-contrast methods, at least through Related Articles, let the reader consider parallel situations. Real namesThe default assumption will be that contributors will use verified real names for material that Citizendium will present to the public. Some exceptions may be allowed on a restricted basis. If an individual can satisfy the appropriate personnel administrators that using their real name would present a real danger, or perhaps prevent their participation due to employer rules, pseudonyms may be granted, although there still will be identity verification. If academic-style anonymous review is used, the reviewer(s) of individual articles may not be public,although their identities and credentials will have been verified, and a master list of reviewers periodically published as long as it is large enough that individual identities cannot be deduced.
(undent)OK...let's move toward draft text. Do we simply rule "no pseudonyms" for general user accounts? Journal-style review is a process that we have not yet included, although I think there are good arguments for it, especially during an expert shortage. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Try ThisUser accounts will be granted to individuals upon presentation of a verifiable real name. The Editorial Council will be empowered to make exceptions to this policy. Real names of any pseudonymous users will be maintained by the Chief Constable. Russell D. Jones 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Parallel issueWe do need to make provisions for external reviewers who do not have and do not want user accounts. In the usual academic process, their names are fully known and verified to the journal editor, who, in our process, would be the Approvals Manager. If a classic journal process were followed, however, their names would not be made known to the specific author, although they might be made available to approving authors. Most journals do publish an annual list of all their reviewers' names. In some cases, using the journal process, the reviewer offers to become known to the author and interact; I've done this both as a reviewer and author. It's important, for several reasons, to consider this for Citizendium. First, with our editor shortage, it is possible to get external reviews from people who will do it as a favor to the editor or author, but simply don't want to become Citizens. Milt, I believe, has had this done while he was acting as Editor; I did it as an Author, before there was an approvals manager and for articles that were approved a year later when we had enough Editors. As Daniel and others have mentioned, we might actually choose to introduce a supplementary academic-style approval process, which could encourage some publish-or-perish academics to contribute content that they can cite. We'd have to have a reviewer mechanism to do this. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
(undent) Well, let's not drift on this point. A journal review process does not use pseudonyms, but strictly restricts knowledge of real names and uses anonymity in interactions. Let's discuss pseudonyms under pseudonyms and anonymity/controlled knowledge under this heading. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
|