User:John Stephenson/Editorial Council 2011

I think you would like to read about what I intend to put forward in the future if you elect me to the Editorial Council, so the lists below set out some ideas. First, some background information about me (for more, see my user page and contributions list).

Background
I have been a member of Citizendium since November 2006. I was a Constable for about three months in 2007, but have never held any other office. I am an Author with a background in linguistics, and so many of my edits have been to articles related to language. I contribute to the forums and have started many discussions there, but I am more at home on the main wiki.

My name already pops up on some EC pages as they were kind enough to discuss four of my proposals, and one actually got passed without massive amendments (titles for language articles). I have also proposed two referenda for this month's elections, on the powers of the Managing Editor and the election of unopposed candidates. These are part of my intention to involve myself in streamlining how CZ works.

I have volunteered to do quite a bit of work on my own initiative. Many years ago, I tried to get linguists to link to our linguistics pages. More recently, I have been trying to contact inactive Editors with Talk page messages tailored to each person's background (example). I have also done some cleanup, including identifying and requesting deletion of media with unsatisfactory copyright information. Outside CZ, I am responsible for the project's presence on Facebook and Google+. I am also working on ways to automatically post information to Twitter (here and here).

Ideas
A lot of my work has been without any formal authority, so I feel it would be easier to get things done if I also held a seat on the EC. I have amassed a lot of ideas, some of which are below. I should stress that although at the moment I support them, I am very much open to alternatives.

The role of experts

 * I believe we need to give experts reasons to edit here. I personally opposed bylines for a long time, but the chance for recognition might attract people. An expert could have their name prominently placed on any Approved Article they had contributed to.


 * For the same reason as above, I think we need to seriously look at allowing Editor self-approval of work. We may need to allow experts who have been here for a while to write, declare their own work reasonably accurate and complete, and declare it an 'approved article' (but see the next idea below). Possibly we could distinguish self-approved and regularly-approved articles with different article banners, etc. We are not a peer-reviewed specialist journal; I've experienced academic peer review, and it's nothing like an Editor here simply marking an article as at a minimum in accordance with what they know of the field. As long as readers are clear on that, we can go ahead and present experts' work more easily.


 * In addition to the above, Editors should not be given power across whole Workgroups. With the above proposal, it would be easier to get more approved work, but the safety measure would be that an Editor could only approve work in their actual field and topics which incorporate their expertise as a sub-field. In other words, every full Editor becomes a kind of 'Speciality Editor' or 'Specialist', but with slightly more power. For example, someone whose background is in English mediaeval history would be able to approve articles on English mediaeval history, the Middles Ages in Europe, and general articles of which their field is a component, e.g. 'English history' and 'History' as a whole. But articles on World War II or twentieth-century Peruvian politics would be out. It would be down to the EC, with the help of any other Editors, to intervene over an Editor's approval of a particular Developed Article, or act if approvals are excessive, etc.


 * We should approach approvals with the simplest system possible. An Editor nominates a Developed Article in their Workgroup and specialist field for approval. No other Editor objects; nor does the EC formally object. The article is approved after a week. That's it.


 * There a number of Authors here who are clearly qualified and experienced enough to be Editors, but modesty and an understanding of how complex their fields are mean that they have never applied. The EC could assign Authors as Editors, with only a refusal from the Author or an objection from an Editor preventing it. I think that PhD-level qualifications and/or multiple peer-reviewed publications (or equivalent experience) is about the right boundary between Author and Editor.


 * We could devolve powers to Workgroups. My recollection is that originally Workgroups were created partly to allow groups of experts, with the help of Authors, to devise and co-ordinate policies on the articles within the group's purview. Currently, they are little more than article lists. Perhaps if two Editors devise a policy on content and one other doesn't object, it would become a rule in due course unless the EC formally blocked it.

The EC, articles, and the wider CZ community

 * A large number of EC motions have been passed, but some are yet to be implemented. I would highlight the feasibility of implementing new proposals and seek to organise ways to apply them if passed. Some existing rules might be considered for amendment or repeal if they are determined to be impractical.


 * Public and community relations: I would support using the main wiki, the forums and social networking as much as possible to make Citizens and non-Citizens alike aware of the EC's work, via regular updates. This I have unofficially gone some way with already (see 'Background' above, regarding Twitter etc.).


 * We need to look at the presence of the 700+ External Articles, many of which are largely unmodified pages copied from Wikipedia five years ago. Those old pages could be deleted. At the same time, I believe we should look again at the EC's ban on importing material from outside Citizendium. A rule requiring prompt, substantive modification and cleanup of newly-imported material might suffice.


 * As one of the twelve Combined Council members, I would have to be persuaded against the view I'm currently leaning towards on CZ governance, namely that ultimately the Councils should be merged into one. This avoids disputes over which Council has which responsibility. I have an idea for transitional arrangements, which would involve no incumbent or newcomer being kicked out, but would slim down the governance structure to 7 (or 9) members over time.

EC procedures

 * Investigate the possibility of merging the EC wiki with the main wiki, to make it easier for Citizens to follow the EC's work, ease the technical staff's burden, and ensure that EC discussions are indisputably subject to the Charter and full Constabulary moderation. At the moment, the EC is insulated from the rest of the project, as non-members cannot have accounts on its wiki. I suspect that many contributors are at best only peripherally aware of the EC wiki's existence, and probably unaware of what passed motions may mean for their work.

You may disagree with many of the proposals above, but you might agree that some should at least be discussed. If so, please consider casting one of your Author votes for me.