CZ Talk:Charter/Archive 2

Done

 * 1) Agree on Committee chairperson: Joe Quick
 * 2) Agree on the basic Structure.

Auxiliary pages
''The following subpages of this page have been set up to help the drafting process. The same editing restrictions as to this page apply there unless noted otherwise.''

=Open questions= ''Please discuss these points in the Comments section, and if they have been resolved, strike them out here. You can also add other issues here that you think need to be addressed.''

[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2930.msg25891.html#msg25891 It's worth reviewing the outstanding issues. This is certainly not exhaustive, but we certainly need work in]:


 * Clearly defining the , including providing for legitimate advanced subjects, and at least having a framework that allows branches or subpages for pre-college levels.


 * , neutrality, or whatever we call it -- I think we have some good text, but the issue of expertise vs. egalitarianism is still there.


 * Assuming we have "interim guidance" (cf. and ), a minimal framework for reliability marking, probably broadening beyond approval.


 * The idea of internal workspaces (cf. ) not exposed to the general public, for collaborative improvement of things not ready for prime time


 * Dispute resolution (cf. ) is, I think, fairly close to being done in concept but not clear enough


 * Duties and election of the , including the corporate/legal officer needs.


 * Number of members in the ' and the '


 * Requests for should be regulated


 * Detail of prescriptions concerning (and ), directly in the Charter, in the interim guidance, or left up to the

= Comments on Charter draft text =

Real names section
second sentence is too detailed for charter. third sentence needs to be slightly revised to be more general.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What about this? --Daniel Mietchen 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I slightly changed your amendment.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not enamored with the exceptions. Russell D. Jones 14:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Nor am I. Probably, we need to specify why exceptions can be made, and who/what will decide. I am not sure that the official accounts need to appear in the Charter, though. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the exceptions. --Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, but as far as I know there have been a few legitimate exceptions. They need to be allowed for, by some procedure (e.g. special application to the Chief Constable). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the interim guidance section on pseudonyms. See also here. --Daniel Mietchen 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: no need for pseudonyms, at least from CZ experiences. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification of this charter
To me, this is not a subheading under "Electorate", but at the same level. --Daniel Mietchen 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judicial process
I made some changes here, trying to be more absolute.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Professionalism
Some major changes here in the last sentence. I tried to make it simultanously universal yet with some flexibility. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See Also "Professionalism" below.

Workgroups
The only statement about workgroups is that the Editorial Council shall have power to establish a workgroup policy. When workgroup policy needs to change, you're going to have to amend the charter which (rightly) should be a lot harder than changing an ed council policy. Russell D. Jones 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree, for the pragmatic reason that the workgroup system is floundering and it would take at least three months to get a new EC started on the problem. This is an example of what I consider "interim guidance", which is designated as changeable by the appropriate body, not requiring a Charter amendment, but usable in the meantime. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to interject here again. The workgroup policy does not need to be defined in the Charter.  And I don't see the problem you see with the workgroups.  The biggest problem here is that some groups have small populations.  But this will be solved with time.  Workgroup policy should be left for the EC. Russell D. Jones 16:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't need to be in the Charter, but there urgently needs to be better interim guidance. We may not have enough lifetime to keep deferring at least guidance to bodies that couldn't form and decide in less than 4 months or so. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Author
An author is any account. This current definition posits a whole class of people who have accounts but are denied the rights and privileges of authors. Russell D. Jones 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, this seems to be the case. Presumably the idea is to cast inactive authors as non-authors, but this is not a good idea. Is there a need to define an author as someone who has written something on CZ, leaving as Citizens those who have not? Normally, a Citizen in any state system has full legal rights. Therefore, it would make more sense to say that only those who write or edit are citizens, but this also is not a good idea... I suggest deleting this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the distinction between Author and Citizen. --Daniel Mietchen 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mission statement
If the current version is to be replaced by some variant of what is being discussed on the forum, we should not forget to introduce the term Citizen on its first mention. --Daniel Mietchen 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just rephrased the mission statement and added the definitino of Citizens to its first mention, in the Professionalism section. --Daniel Mietchen 22:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Current version:"The Citizendium is a collaborative expert-guided effort to collect, structure and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free.

" --Daniel Mietchen 15:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Being Bold
I agree with the statement "A basic Professionalism rule, however, is that large deletions or revisions, or renaming pages other than for clear errors, should not be made without a reasonable attempt to get consensus on the Talk Page." but do not think it should go into (this section of) the charter. --Daniel Mietchen 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be an example of "interim guidance". Where should it go? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I put it into Collaboration now. --Daniel Mietchen 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some revisions to the last version of Being Bold, trying to make it a little more certain for authors. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked over the current version of the whole document (except to skim it), so don't take this as my last or only word on the document. It's just a quick in-and-out comment.  But I did notice this as a gloss on "be bold": "Should Citizens be unsure that their planned contributions are in conformity with the Charter and its subordinate policies, they are advised to seek comments from Editors and the wider community. In the absence of disputes, they may reasonably proceed."  How on Earth does that encapsulate "be bold"?  Someone who follows that rule is being the opposite of bold.  It seems to me that whoever wrote that does not actually agree with the meaning of "be bold," and if you don't agree with it, you should be advocating getting rid of it as a policy instead of trying to rewrite it in a way that basically jettisons it as a policy.  The notion--which I came up with for Wikipedia--is that people unfamiliar with the system should not concern themselves too much about breaking often complex or arcane-seeming rules, or doing "wrong" things generally, but just proceed indeed boldly on the assumption that as long as they are acting in good faith, they are probably "within the law."  The reason for the policy in the first place was that some people were very worried about doing something wrong and so wouldn't do anything.  That has been, I think, even more a problem on CZ than it was in the early days of Wikipedia.  The function of saying "be bold" is simply to embolden people who are reticent and strongly desirous not to give offense, and who think they have to master all the rules before they do anything.  Asking them to get advice (from editors first and foremost, no less!) before they proceed is precisely to ask them not to be bold, but instead to subordinate themselves to the know-it-all regulars. --Larry Sanger 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also had some thoughts along those lines. I didn't write the original text (I merely improved the English)but I suppose that the idea implicitly was that the default way of being should Be Bold, and if you have any doubts, here is a way to remove those doubts. I agree with Larry that the unconscious message reads somehow differently, and we need to rethink this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is one of CZ's problems. Let's just leave it as -- Be Bold! If there is a problem with something that you have written, somebidy will surely come along and fix it! D. Matt Innis 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I rephrased it as "Citizens are encouraged to be bold in contributing to the project." --Daniel Mietchen 15:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity
I oppose the existence of this section and also the use of the word. I recommend the idea of inclusiveness as an alternative to neutrality, which also has been problematic.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we are supposed to agree on the draft presented for the discussion period, I have removed the section and paste it in here:
 * ===Objectivity===
 * Information presented objectively is based on careful, unbiased and documented observation. When conflicting information exists, enough background must be given that the reader can understand the merits and weaknesses of the major alternatives. The Citizendium is not a place for advocacy, nor for advertisement.
 * --Daniel Mietchen 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's try to draft an alternative here. The starting point must be the title. Suggestions? I'll offer "Non-partisan, inclusive knowledge" Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, what do you mean by "inclusive knowledge?" D. Matt Innis 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean that it takes an holistic view, encompassing different perspectives, paradigms,premisses etc. Much as the Neutrality Policy also requires (but trying to avoid the word neutrality). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So are we saying that articles should "include" all perspectives, but not require them to be presented "neutrally". Is that the reason to avoid use of the word "Neutrality"? What kind of consequences do you expect that to have? D. Matt Innis 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No. But neutral has the same problems as objective, namely that they don't exist. Non-partisan is my version of neutral. We might also include other descriptors, such as "balanced", "fair representation of competing views", etc., Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe, rather intensely, that the Charter has to make clear that "balanced" or whatever word is selected does not mean all views are required to be present, or, if present, to be given equal emphasis. The point about CZ not being a place of advocacy, I hope, is not objectionable; advocacy is inherently partisan. One can always rely on the Nazis for a worst-case example; I don't believe there is a requirement to give equal space to the facts of adjudicated crimes against humanity, and the justification for them. Someday, I hope to take Mein Kampf out of cold storage for a reasonable analysis, but do not expect it to be "sympathetic" to Adolf. Accurate, yes. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need something to guide how competing views should be presented. Maybe, "providing clear guidance on the extent of scientific and popular support". Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think on average, we are all inclusionists when it comes to our author instincts, but as editors we tend to be restrictionist. Some of this is necessary, but at times crosses the line into advocacy by deletion of opposing views.  This is complicated... too complicated for us eight to take the responsibility for. The concepts need to be effectively debated and settled, but not in this venue. Here we are just supposed to be creating the Charter that will guide future discussions.  We should just state that Citizendium will abide by such and such policy and then determine that such and such policy can be changed by 2/3 vote of some quorum. D. Matt Innis 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Hmm. Reminds me of the definition of pornography.. I'll recognize it when I see it.. What I think is important is that we don't allow biased, emotionally driven but effectively hidden, descriptions of competing views.  The dictionary definition of "objective" does seem to satisfy this for me -- as does neutral, but what is it that these don't satisfy for you? In other words, why should we try to leave out Neutral for something just as vague? I'm willing to consider anything that would seem like an improvement, but I haven't really heard it, yet. D. Matt Innis 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, neutral implies that you don't make any judgements at all. This is far from being non-partisan, in that I might not support a Socialist position versus a Conservative position, but presumably I want at least to hint that a Neo-Nazi position is not something that CZ endorses, even if it does mention its existence. I also want to indicate that support for Neo-Nazi ideas is generally very small, with occasional local exceptions. Neutrality Policy does not permit this, at least in its formulation. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, I disagree. I don't think Citizendium has time to keep putting this off to future forums, which can't realistically be in operation for another three months. I think it's entirely reasonable to have what I've called "interim guidance", which is the best consensus of the Charter drafters, but can be changed by the Editorial Council rather than requiring full Charter amendment. This particular issue is one that, in my opinion, is likeliest to lead to the death of Citizendium unless a stand is taken.


 * Which issue is going to lead to the death of Citizendium? D. Matt Innis 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutrality policy that overrides expertise, and requires presentation of fringe views. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Experts are the originators of "fringe" views. Neutrality just requires that we express each "expert" view as accurately as we can. D. Matt Innis 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In a word, nonsense, as in the Nazi justifications. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Martin, yes, I think guidance on competing views is important. Now, I can speak with a certain degree of expertise on different views within the original NDSAP, much less neo-Nazis. For example, in discussing the Holocaust, it is appropriate to explain the economic exploitation view of the WVHA versus the "security" killing mentality of the RSHA. I don't need, however, to describe either sympathetically or suggest that CZ considers them reasonable views. The closest to "sympathy", required under existing Fundamental Principle Neutrality Policy I can get is observing the regret, in the death sentence of Otto Ohlendorf, that the judges had -- that he had not made different decisions with his agreed great abilities. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction is that CZ shouldn't consider anything a "reasonable" view. It just states what the view was. The reader decides if it is a reasonable view. D. Matt Innis 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Russell D. Jones 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Maybe the important thing that is missing is that one editor shouldn't be deciding anything on his/her own. D. Matt Innis 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not? An author says that chiropractic manipulation causes gonorrhea. Do you need three editors to reject that statement? Sorry, I will not agree to the idea that an editor, if qualified, can't make decisions. That utterly destroys the idea of respect for expertise, and I won't stay under such a rule.Howard C. Berkowitz 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, expertise, as decided in editor qualification, should assume that some views predominate. I shall not, for example, agree that the WHVA or RSHA views, the proponents of both being hung by the neck until dead by order of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals or International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), were reasonable. Both held a position that there was "life unworthy of life" (a doctrinal statement), but one believed in getting as much economic value as possible out of those useless lives before they died.


 * If only for myself, I'd like a firm position taken on these fundamental principles. If experts aren't to give expert judgments, I'd like to know, if only for myself, so I can leave without prolonging the agony. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - I'll read your response after I put this back in) Well, as long as the chiropractor uses protection, everyone should be okay -- though they don't use antibiotics! :)


 * But what about the homeopath that takes out the statement that Howard puts in that says that remedies are 100% water. In this case there were other editors there to revert those actions.  Of course, any appeal process would probably include more than one editor anyway, too.


 * Where are you going?


 * D. Matt Innis 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Leave Citizendium, and other online resource that has a Seinfeld sort of view that there are no positions worthy of being considered substantially correct. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I consider it crucial that the content gives particular weight to existing expert opinions, without the requirement to represent all views on a topic. --Daniel Mietchen 07:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't actually have a problem with stating a wide range of views, since an encyclopedia should do that. Nor do I have a problem with trying to state each of those views accurately, since academics are supposed to do that (and often fail). My problems are with the concepts of "objectivity" and "neutrality". The first because it simply does not exist; the second because it implies that we give equal and uncritical presentation of all opinions, even cranky nonsenses supported by 0.0001% of the population. This latter is not encyclopedic and impedes the presentation of serious scientific articles, if taken at face value.


 * There is a lot of opposition to the existence and wording of Neutrality Policy on CZ. Read the Forums. Note the previous editorial arguments and departures. Therefore, the Charter has to address this issue in principle. Again, I suggest the concept of "inclusiveness" while making clear to the reader which are the accepted mainstream positions. This is normal encyclopedia writing, and almost everyone on CZ wants that to prevail, as far as I know. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that "careful, unbiased and documented observation" (as stated in that deleted paragraph) is indeed possible and happens on a daily basis in many labs around the globe, but I agree that this is not necessarily what people (inside or outside CZ) would associate with the term "objectivity". So, in a sense, I understand that you are looking for a new title (what about "No prejudices"?), but I do not understand why the rest of that section would not fit. --Daniel Mietchen 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My view, Daniel, is that the wording you selected previously is generally (but not always) appropriate for natural science. Observations in the social world are frequently biased and/or wrong; observations in history require interpretations. So, for a universal understanding of the underlying philosophy of CZ we need some explanation of how to deal with theories, concepts, ideologies, marginal viewpoints, religious beliefs, etc. This is extremely difficult. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like Joe's suggestion (per email) that we might take objectivity as a goal and, while being conscious of it not being universally attainable, strive to approach it asymptotically to the best of our means. --Daniel Mietchen 14:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice the discussion here; sorry for my out-of-context, out-of-the-loop email. In short, I don't think we're going to be able to come up with a word or a policy that actually defines exactly what Citizendium will become.  Thus, it is worth aiming for an ideal, even if we must acknowledge that it is merely an ideal.  I think Objectivity is a worthy ideal.  It should be complemented by a few others: accuracy; fair, unbiased representation; and inclusiveness. --Joe Quick 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "holistic coverage"? I agree that objectivity is a sort of ideal but I fear it will be heavily criticised as a word or concept. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, holistic is good. I've suggested that word time and time again and have been repeatedly ignored or criticized for it.  I doubt it is much better than objectivity in that way, but it is another important aspect. --Joe Quick 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How's this for a formulation that encompasses the ideal and the practical: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects holistically and objectively to the greatest degree possible. In practice, this means that articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias." --Joe Quick 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt makes an interesting point in the Forum: that "neutrality" is one of several known attributes of CZ, so we should retain the word but carefully define it. I suspect that I personally will be happy with no single word, so provided that it is properly defined and unambiguous, I would not oppose retaining the actual word "neutrality" simply for continuity. This would mean that the definition needs to be absolutely spot-on. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) And yes, your definition is not bad at all, Joe. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The second entry at reference.com seems about right. It gives neutral as: "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy." I think the second definition of objective as an adjective is closer to what we really want: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased."  Actually, they're just different enough that we might consider using both, so long as they are clearly defined.  I also forgot above to include, "Citizendium is not a place for advocacy, nor for advertisement," which I think is really good. --Joe Quick 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So here's my next take: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects holistically, neutrally and objectively to the greatest degree possible. The holistic approach to article writing entails representing each topic as a complex whole rather than a simple conglomeration of its parts; a good Citizendium article will explain all facets of its subject, including all significant points of view, applications, and connections to other topics.  It will also be neutral, which means it will not align with any one position if there is controversy surrounding some aspect of the article's topic.  Instead, it will remain objective, describing each relevant position without skewing the narrative toward the personal beliefs or positions of the author(s).  In short, articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias. Citizendium is not a place for advocacy or for advertisement." --Joe Quick 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There's progress here, as long as we have a clear understanding of irrelevant perspectives. Let me try an example of an approach: in the main Holocaust article, there should be only a brief mention that there are some that deny the Holocaust happened, a point where the great mass of opinion and evidence disagrees. See Holocaust denial for a discussion of the social and ideological factors that motivate this argument. Holocaust denial could be a stub, but the point is that it is not argued as a relevant view in the main article. In some cases, a sidebar might even be appropriate, if the topic adds flavor, such as Green cheese in an article on Lunar geology (selenology). (what cheeses are green, anyway? Sap Sago, vaguely...) Howard C. Berkowitz 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the reason that Holocaust Denial is irrelevant (other than to note its existence and some notorious cases) is that their evidence for it is zero. It is a view that can be briefly mentioned (and it would be erroneous to omit it) but the actual coverage given to it in the article will be minimal according to Joe's definition above. On the other hand, an article on Holocaust Denial would be in order, because it is a political phenomenon and interesting in itself, although I don't think I would wish to explain their beliefs "sympathetically" as current policy advocates. I am happy with the latest definition, I think. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It appears we are in fundamental agreement on the principles, but I'm not convinced we are saying clearly enough that a view with little or no support is irrelevant to the main article, and that it may be worthy of coverage as a social phenomenon. I suppose it would be sympathetic simply to comment that Fred Leuchter's knowledge of science was gained from children's television, but I'd really like to banish the concepts of "writing for the enemy" and "sympathetic". The closest I come is, perhaps, to note the classic tragedy, indeed sometimes noted in a death sentence, of how a bureaucratic mass murderer such as Ohlendorf both believed he was being pure to an ideology, even fighting for purity inside the Third Reich, and all agreed was an immensely talented man who could have, instead, done great good. Even he agreed that he needed to hang. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Joe's last configuration: I've thought about it off and on all day.. It is very good, I think.

As a head's up, though, I do have to mentiion that the word "holistic" is a loaded term for healthcare. In some medical circles it is a "bad word" because it has connotations of alternative medicine from the 1970s... having said that, I think it is a great word and a good concept for writing.

We have included the word "neutrally", but I wonder if we shouldn't keep this closer to "neutrality" for the "brand" effect that we all love and appreciate so much...

As for Howard's point about "irrelevent perspectives", I think each really has to be managed on a case by case basis at the lower levels. How much research is enough to qualify as a scientific endeavor? How many scientists have to agree that it is psedoscience? Is it fringe or is it cutting edge? Is the reed a musical instrument? Is yoga healthcare? Is prayer alternative medicine? Should prayer be used in the treatments for cancer article? I would have no problem with hearing arguments in the history workgroup concerning how much to include holocaust denial in any history article. I would expect that those editors can make the right decision. I don't know enough about it to decide that here. So, if we do anything about "irrelevant perspectives here on the charter, it should be to refer them to their individual workgroups. D. Matt Innis 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We may be making progress. Irrelevancy is appropriately determined by people familiar with the topic. Now, that does lead to two potential problems:
 * What if the Workgroup has a low population, especially if there's one active Editor?
 * Editors need to be empowered to make such calls, rather than (it feels) constantly being told to get more Editors involved -- when there aren't any. I would have no problem, in a one (or few) editor workgroup, putting the question to the mailing list or workgroup page, but, to avoid endless edit wars, the relevant Editor or Editors have to be supported when decisions are made. Yes, there may be appeals, but if we do a reasonable job in selecting Editors, the majority of appeals will go against the appellant. For the EC to overturn a ruling, the matter has to be compelling to nonspecialists.
 * In some respects, saying "let the workgroup decide" is specifically going against what I call the hyper-egalitarian, and insisting on "sympathy" and presentation of all views of whatever relevance.
 * Neutrality, I believe, is a WP brand; it's just a restatement of the abbreviation NPOV, which we forbid. Going to a new word is classic rebranding strategy, especially when the existing brand is not distinctive. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll float this idea ...suppose we were to structure the workgroups in such a way that a hierarchy exists that grouped similar workgroups together so that no less than three active editors were available from that subset of workgroups at any one time. In fact, we might not allow a new workgroup to form until there are at least three available editors. You get the idea... it would allow for the same rules to apply even as we grew.  Of course, we put this under the control of the EC.  It satisfies Russell and Larry's earlier concerns that our structure is too big to fill the positions.  This way all the positions are filled from day one and allow for growth.. and satisfy your concern and my concern about one editor making a decision. D. Matt Innis 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, but why should this get into the Charter? The EC has the power to organise this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Russell D. Jones 16:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it should be part of the charter - other than to set the stage for the EC to do this, but we have to have a big picture to get this piece finished. When we're all on the same page, we are invincible. :-) D. Matt Innis 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This should probably move under "Workgroups"
 * If we agree that it's reasonable, it's the sort of thing that I've been calling "interim guidance", which can go either into the Charter or a supporting document that can be changed by the EC without a charter amendment. Putting out such ideas lets us have needed structure in the 3-4 months it would take for the EC to decide.


 * That being said, some Editors are reluctant to go outside their specialty within an existing group. For example, I've been told, by Politics Editors, that they are uncomfortable doing International Relations/Politics. My own feeling is that experienced researchers can do an interim job, but it depends on the individual. I would be comfortable, for example, doing at least interim coverage, and perhaps later specialist or reorganized Editor, in Health Sciences, Politics and Journalism, all areas in which I have professional experience. I still would like to find someone willing to take on interim Military. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Building upon Joe's last configuration: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects comprehensively, neutrally and objectively to the greatest degree possible. Writing comprehensively entails representing each topic as a complex whole rather than a simple conglomeration of its parts; a good Citizendium article will explain all facets of its subject that experts judge significant. It will also be neutral, which means it will not align with any one position if there is controversy amongst experts concerning some aspect of the article's topic. Instead, it will remain objective, describing each relevant position without skewing the narrative toward the personal beliefs or positions of the author(s). In short, articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias. Citizendium is not a place for advocacy or for advertisement." --Daniel Mietchen 16:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * How should we title that section in the draft? None of the terms "Objectivity", "Neutrality" or "Comprehensiveness" seems to do it alone, so what about some combination of them? Alternatively, we could go for something like "Coherent narrative". --Daniel Mietchen 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is pretty good, except that it now uses a definition of holism to describe comprehensiveness. They're not really the same thing.  We can take out the word "holistic" but we should leave its definition, which is probably much more useful than the word itself anyway.  And then we should add connect the actual definition for "comprehensive" to the word itself.  Here's my suggestion: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects comprehensively, neutrally and objectively to the greatest degree possible. Writing comprehensively entails providing full explanations of all facets of an article's subject that experts judge significant.  Furthermore, each topic should be represented as a complex whole rather than a simple conglomeration of its parts: a good Citizendium article will explain how different aspects of a topic fit together as well as applications and connections to other topics. It will also be neutral, which means the article will not align with any one position if there is controversy amongst experts concerning some aspect of the article's topic. Instead, it will remain objective, describing each relevant position without skewing the narrative toward the personal beliefs or positions of the author(s). In short, articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias. Citizendium is not a place for advocacy or for advertisement."--Joe Quick 14:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Very, very close. Holistic always makes me unsure if I'm dealing with religion, or doughnuts and bagels. One or two thoughts, some of which may be guidance, but deal with real issues.
 * The author's obligation is to be objective from the first draft. CZ is not a place to put a version with known bias and expect others to "balance" it.
 * "Experts judge significant" may be adequate to cover extreme fringe in articles that deal with substantives. Does it also judge with articles, the very topic of which is not objective except when viewed as a social phenomenon?

Howard C. Berkowitz 15:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the first point, it does say that the articles should be written without bias, not that they should be published without bias or once the bias is removed. On the second point, I know you disagree, but I don't think articles about fringe topics should be excluded simply because they are fringe.  If anyone believes in a fringe theory, then someone is likely to look it up.  Isn't it better to have an article that explains the fringe theory and helps people understand why it is fringe than to send them away with no new information and the belief that it still might be true? --Joe Quick 16:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Our current policy allows us to remove articles that are obviously non-neutral - especially if the original author has left the project, though it seems that editing the article should not be a problem in that case. I'm pretty sure that anyone can find bias in anything anyone else has written on their own, so we shouldn't use that as a reason to delete the article or block/discipline an author (though I can envision the EC using biased writing as a reason to remove an editor's rights).  Comprehensive, neutral and objective are lofty goals and we can't expect all articles to start out that way.  All we need to do is to assure that the original author does not hamper the collaborative process as it attempts to make adjustments. That includes not allowing articles to be "owned" by any author or editor, and not allowing behavior that intimidates or causes people to shy away from the collaborative process. Then our articles will end up comprehensive, neutral and objective.


 * By using the word comprehensive, we are choosing to insinuate that we are looking for detail, which I think is a good thing. So, overall, I think Joe's configuration is pretty good.
 * D. Matt Innis 04:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is a problem when a non-neutral article is started and the author leaves the project, when the subject of the article is not terribly of interest to others, or it would take considerable research to document the other views. The assumption that other Citizens are waiting, eagerly, to fix articles is, I'm afraid, an erroneous assumption.

What is to stop an advocate for some position to register, drop in a number of quite biased articles, and leave, hoping that they will be here and retrieved by search engines before being detected? Perhaps an aside, but a warning sign tends to be when the articles could be linked to other articles yet are left orphaned.

I am simply not willing to agree to anything that suggests an author should not do their best to be unbiased from the first draft. Right now, I'm aware of a situation where some biased articles were posted by a new Citizen, who has not responded to talk page comments or email, giving guidance on other views that need to be presented.

Until there is a critical mass for collaboration, we can't afford the luxury of letting in any approach and expecting collaboration to fix it. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a catch 22. Right now, that "thing" that you call "critical mass" is directly related to Google.  Google won't pick up on our articles until we have reached a certain level of activity and we can't reach that certain level of activity if keep creating barriers that halt participation.  One of the things that makes people join an online project is because they see some place that they can fit in.  When they search Google for a subject and find that the article on Citizendium does not properly present their understanding, they want to join to change it.  At that point we have to make sure that joining is easy and that making changes is easy.  Our template on top of the page should welcome them and let them know that this is not an approved article - please join and help us reach that status.  The author should be able to Be Bold and start writing.  Over time, others will join in and, if they expect it to reach Approved status, they will have to contact an editor at some point.  If we've set up our author/editor process functionally correct, the rest will work itself out.  Making too many rules up front only "clips our wings" and keeps us from reaching "critical mass".  A constitution needs to be just as viable now as it will be after we are all dead and gone. D. Matt Innis 13:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a catch-22, although I don't strictly believe it is related to Google, or, alternatively, that Google perpetuates the WP and superegalitarian Web 2.0 model. An alternative way to grow, however, is to show experts that there is a viable place for them. Fairly recently, I think we've seen a glimmering of ways to improve that attractiveness: the University of Edinburgh people on Eduzendium are showing a difference that seems based on having collaborative teams from the beginning. The ideas of having something that could be cited is a help, but I have some specific ideas of appealing to various mailing lists, etc., for expert participation, especially in providing a means of documentation that doesn't now exist. Literally, however, I've had individual experts refuse to join variously due to not wanting to be associated with the fringe, or because they find the signup process too intrusive.


 * Here's an idea for at least some fringe -- let one of our early attempted partnerships be snopes.com, and perhaps have minimal fringe content here with links to them. Perhaps, for carefully selected things where we make a conscious discussion to discuss issues, they might link for us. Beyond the scope of the Charter, of course. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course you know that Gareth, our eminent "fringe" author and science editor, is the reason for the University of Edinburgh being here. He is training the exact type people that we want - those that are willing to confront the issues with science and reason... I believe Gareth was the one that wrote "sympathetic" into the neutrality policy. My point in bringing this up is that our goals are the same, Howard, we all want good quality content.  We just disagree that experts don't want to associate themselves with what you call fringe. Healthy dialogue has to include all concerned, otherwise your content will be viewed as biased. D. Matt Innis 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As soon as there is a critical mass of people, besides Gareth himself, who does not have much time, eager to fixed obviously biased articles, I'll consider that a plausible argument. Meanwhile, I deal with real-world scenarios such as a dropping of articles on Iraq War resisters, written by the defense attorney (a new Citizen) and making no reference to the prosecution arguments. The author has not responded to talk page or email courteous suggestions to balance them. I really don't want to research what is clearly another side. The articles are orphaned and not tied into the minimal legal arguments that are present. It bothers my "conscience of quality" to leave them as they are. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one thing for sure, removing them won't stimulate anyone to write the other side or a neutral article. We'll just keep deleting biased articles until you get around to writing one and then wonder why no-one wants to participate. D. Matt Innis 18:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, not for sure. With a reduced number of biased articles, I can think of potential new Citizens who have been reluctant to join in a place where these problematic articles are present, which still claims to be different than Wikipedia. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Restarting this conversation
As there is yet no wording on an "objectivity clause," I'll make the following proposals: that the last draft of Joe's proposal be accepted and that it be called a "Content Policy." I agree with the arguments made above about branding (although I have no evidence about CZ's reputation). Branding is important. I like that the "Content Policy" places emphasis on expertise and that, probably more than anything else, brands CZ. Articles should strive for comprehensiveness, and present data/facts objectively and neutrally without taking sides, with the caveat that an expert understands that marginal interpretations need to be presented, and weighted, as marginal. Ex: (For alternative views, see NPOV and CZ:Neutrality Policy.) I also see where this conversation led to a look at the workgroup policy. I'm reserving judgment until I'm more familiar with your intentions there.

If I missed something, could someone please point me in the right direction? Thanks. Russell D. Jones 16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean this draft by Joe? I assume yes and will paste it into the draft. --Daniel Mietchen 22:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just found this take on objectivity: "A measure of your objectivity is the extent to which you treat confirmatory results with the same scrutiny, skepticism, and search for alternative accounts as you treat unexpected or disconfirmatory results." --Daniel Mietchen 15:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well if that's a definition of objectivity, almost all social science fails :-) This is Karl Popper's negative and positive proof as scientific method, which I fully support (although it's not easy to practise, especially when idiots control financing of research and fail to see value in disconfirmatory results). I am not sure that it really is objectivity, but just good science. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Amending the Charter
Did I miss some discussion on how to do this? The current formulation looks highly problematic and over-prescriptive for the future, to me. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There probably was no real discussion, just the need to have the section and to phrase it out. Please make it better. --Daniel Mietchen 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll try another formulation, and see how people feel. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this..
The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a bit vague, although the Charter should not be too detailed either. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with "purposely vague", but don't have any idea what it means. I can see "conflict of interest with respect to this charter"?  Am I missing something that someone wants to make sure we don't do? D. Matt Innis 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree: I don't know what the drafter had in mind here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll wait to see if anyone meant something specific by it. D. Matt Innis 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I meant that the partnership would have to ensure that Citizens are not required to do anything in conflict with the principles laid out in the charter. This is to avoid partnerships leading us into problems with advocacy, advertisement, or similar. --Daniel Mietchen 07:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration
I think we should delete the second sentence under the collaboration section as too detailed for a charter:

Current:
 * The Citizendium is a collaborative project, open to constructive contributions by any Citizen on any of its content. However, large deletions or revisions, or renaming pages other than for clear errors, should not be made without a reasonable attempt to get other opinions. The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter.

Suggested as an improvement with expectation of further input:
 * The Citizendium is a collaborative project, open to constructive contributions by any Citizen to any of its content. There will be no anonymous editing of publicly viewed content. All unapproved articles are open for editing by any Citizen at any time and immediately becomes property of the Citizendium. The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external non-Citizen partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter.

D. Matt Innis 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I added the above changes, but have some minor concerned about the last sentence still. D. Matt Innis 13:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have made some modifications and took out two sentences (pasted here) which I think do not fit into this section:
 * "There will be no anonymous editing of publicly displayed content. All unapproved articles are open for editing by any Citizen and immediately becomes property of the Citizendium."
 * The first sentence is already covered by the Real Names sentence, while the second is grammatically incorrected and mingles collaborative aspects (already covered in the initial sentence of that section, which I left in) with license aspects, covered in their own section. --Daniel Mietchen 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit comments
Please do not make any edit comments of substance or opinion, which are then lost to the record unless one goes to logs. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean on the Charter page? Because we have all been doing that with our edits on the Charter page... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think going through the history is actually instructive with these comments, much less so without them. --Daniel Mietchen 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking of this page, and that if a comment is useful, it should be in the text; the date on the signature accomplishes all that the history does but is far more readable. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross references
I added two cross references within the Charter -- to "Author" and "Dispute resolution". Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Professionalism
Let's drop the word "polite" from the section. D. Matt Innis 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Being southern American, I'm pretty sure my definition of polite is different than anyone else's. As an editor, sometimes short and curt is necessary, which some might not consider polite.  That opens the door for a whole behavior issue of whether some editor was polite. CZ:Professionalism is hard enough to enforce already. D. Matt Innis 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I was prepared for the spectrum from "The War to Free the Slaves" to the "War of Yankee Imperialism", but was not prepared for the docent in the Museum of the Confederacy (Richmond) who referred to the "Late Unpleasantness Between the States". Something about "without personal attacks"? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As a generally polite British, I do not recall any occasion when you were less than polite, Matt. I agree that words have different meanings across cultures, and even between persons, but I don't forsee any disputes over what is polite and what is not. Am I being naive, here? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider the "polite" condescension of Dr. Cohen, for example, or He Who Shall Not Be Named who would dismiss any dispute with references to "scholars", implying the disputant was not.


 * I cannot help but share one of the more elegant expressions of distaste from a British admiral, where his American counterparts might be more blunt. A destroyer captain, knowing the admiral's eyes were upon him, decided to dock at high speed, showing mastery of shiphandling. Unfortunately, he misjudged, and embedded 20 feet of his bow in the wooden dock.


 * From the flagship came a one-word message, "Good." The captain was a bit puzzled.


 * Ten minutes later, the flagship signaled, "To previous message, please append the word 'God'". Howard C. Berkowitz 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Well, not pertaining to the anecdote, an injunction to be polite does not exclude the possibilities of fraudulent politeness and perfunctory politeness -- both of which may be found to excess in my country of origin. Nevertheless, it is understood that such persons are behaving incorrectly, and relying on superficial verbal form to conceal underlying intent. The injunction retains its validity. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Then should the professionalism policy be "no personal attacks", whether couched in profanity or fraudulent politeness? It would be nice if the Constabulary, however, could retain the truly magnificent response, as in:
 * Earl of Sandwich: "'pon my word, Wilkes, I don't know if you will die on the gallows or of a loathsome disease."
 * John Wilkes: "That depends, m'Lord, if I embrace your principles or your mistresses."
 * (U.S. equivalent available on request) Howard C. Berkowitz 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have civil and the civil template. To me, politeness is slightly more congenial than civil. Some experts, by nature, are quite abrasive - and somtimes perhaps rude. Authors that feel they aren't being heard tend to rage about editor bias. None of these are polite, but if done properly, can remain within professionalism and civility. Trying to regulate politeness seems like something I tried (and likey failed) to do with my children. D. Matt Innis 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I propose substituting "civil" for polite. I hadn't imagined trying to regulate politeness, but as we have already used civil for some time let's keep to it. I will change the draft now, and wait for any arguments:-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Deal, no argument from me.. though could you imagine if we all had to be polite! It would be so nice to come to work! :) D. Matt Innis 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Civil works. Admittedly, when I was a civil servant, I attempted to be civil, but not servile.


 * Of course, suh, they were also polite on the Field of Honor. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

locking policy pages
We should state that policy pages and the policies themselves are locked once they have been confirmed by the responsible bodies, right? Perhaps as part of the interim suggestions, we should make it clear that the governing bodies need to evaluate existing policies, modify those that need adjustments, and the lock them. --Joe Quick 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since our "bodies" aren't yet fully active, we should lock them as they are now and instruct which bodies have the power to amend them and under what circumstances. Once we have finished the process of creating the Charter, those bodies can then move to amend the policies that they are responsible for, i.e. neutrality policy, professionalism policy, etc.. D. Matt Innis 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Am I correct in assuming that what I've called "interim guidance" would go on these pages, with an appropriate section header to explain they come from the Charter process? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Council
As pointed out in the Forum, the vagueness of the previous wording allocated no definite seats to Authors. I have now specified numbers -- 8 editors, 5 authors. We need to decide on the ratio, but I think a clear majority of editors is needed on the editorial council because of the nature of its work.

Also, I amended the term of office from 2 years re-electable to re-electable once consecutively. This provision should also probably be adopted in the Management Committee, if people agree with it.

On a separate point, it is evident from past functioning that we need (a) elected senior personnel to make things happen; and (b) some rules of procedure. Is there any reason that we are not continuing the Chair and Secretary roles? What about Council Resolutions? We already have quite a few of those, and the process worked quite well until recently. Comments and suggestions are needed! I am also not sure about the need for this representation of the EC, by a Management Lead. What is this person supposed to do? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Vice Chair and Chair make more sense than Secretary and Chair, since one of the specific needs is having someone to act in the absence of the primary. Beyond resolutions, both Councils need to be enabled to discuss strategy and objectives.


 * The Management Lead (and other Management) will need to be able to execute contracts on behalf of CZ, to make official statements not concerned with content, and to chair the MC.


 * I disagree with term limits in an organization such as this. In other volunteer organizations, when we found someone very good in a job, it tended to be that they would become tired, rather than needing to be forced from office--but they still needed to be reelectd. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't allow this Management lead to tell some external interest that he cannot comment because it is content related. D. Matt Innis 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with term limits.


 * I'm okay with either Chair and Secretary or Chair and Vice Chair. D. Matt Innis 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we sure that something called the Editorial Council should not be made of all editors. If it is going to be the only body, then why limit either editors or authors?  Just wondering. D. Matt Innis 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the Council Resolution system and allow the EC to make it a simpler process if necessary. All Citizens need to be able to make proposals and vote on them, too? D. Matt Innis 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No, the Management Lead can comment on content, or can designate a content person to do so. It is wise,however, that there is a central point for public relations.


 * The Editorial Council will not be the only body. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] What about the number of members? I think 13 is too many for the moment, eleven may be better (6 Editors, 5 Authors). For the long term, one could think of a solution with more again. So what about setting it to 11 now and including into the interim guidelines that the number of members in EC & MC can be changed by up to -2 or +10 within the first two years after ratification if both bodies vote for this with ≥2/3? Have put a similar comment into the MC section. --Daniel Mietchen 16:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

audience
Peter's comment in the forums about audience merits some attention. I have mixed feelings about the "high-school educated" audience level that was established for Citizendium at its outset. On the one hand, we need to be clear about who our target audience should be so that we can produce appropriate material. In general, the typical beginning college student (which is the original formulation, I think) or non-students with a similar level of education are as good a target as any if we want to produce a general reference resource. On the other hand, it actually does limit us somewhat. We should be clear that some topics require more specialized training to fully understand.

Howard suggests that top-level articles should be accessible to the general public while others might have prerequisites listed somewhere. That's a good place to start, but I think we need a more general strategy in the charter. There's no reason that any article would have to be written below the level of the general public, so we can use that as a baseline. We want to be maximally accessible, after all. It almost certainly is not possible to write about all topics in a way that the general public is able to understand; we must acknowledge that somehow and allow articles that are written at a higher level. However, we should not allow loopholes for people who simply don't want to write for the general public to hijack an article. We need a balance.

"Advanced level" subpages might be a solution but this is too specific for the charter. Without being too vague, we need a formulation that allows the project to host advanced material but still encourage all content to be maximally accessible. --Joe Quick 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a legitimate concern without a simple answer. I do think it's an argument, which indeed might be in the charter, for "structuring" including the idea of knowledge hierarchies, but not specifying how the hierarchy is established.


 * As far as "hijacking", I have mixed feelings. There's one reasonably prolific author that tends to write initial articles that are somewhat more than an annotated journal bibliography, but lacking context. On the other hand, even though there isn't interactive collaboration, I've been able to fill in a fair bit of context, and perhaps make some of it accessible to an undergraduate. One of the things that differentiate these articles from what I've called a "data dump" is the references are generally pertinent, at least if one understands the topic. Perhaps we need to say something about encouraging collaboration when an author is, for whatever reason, not comfortable with putting the "scaffolding" around the key but complex details. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Accessibility" rephrased as "While the basic content provided at the Citizendium is intended for an audience with completed secondary education, more specialized content is welcome." --Daniel Mietchen 15:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * added "if placed in context" --Daniel Mietchen 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Management Committee
It is currently meant to appoint and oversee Constables, but allows Constables to be a member. Is this reasonable? --Daniel Mietchen 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Constables, by definition, are people of mature judgment, who also see the most of operational and behavioral problems. Why deny the committee their expertise? Checks and balances, especially when they limit the use of a small pool of people, can go too far. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, agreed. --Daniel Mietchen 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

[unindent] What about the number of members? I think 13 is too many for the moment, nine may be better. For the long term, one could think of a solution with more again. So what about setting it to 9 now and including into the interim guidelines that the number of members in EC & MC can be changed by up to -2 or +10 within the first two years after ratification if both bodies vote for this with ≥2/3? Will put a similar comment into the EC section. --Daniel Mietchen 16:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 13 would be ideal, but 9 may end up being the most practical. We simply just don't have sufficient active participants, yet. This should be up for review every 12 months, when we can assess how membership numbers are going and if they are needed to make the committee function properly. Meg Ireland 05:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We could also add that changes to the number of members of either the MC or EC can be made by direct popular vote without amendment to this charter. Russell D. Jones 17:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Warmspace
The idea has been floating around for a while to have a friendly and collaborative alternative to CZ:Cold Storage. Do we need to include this point in the Charter? I think not, but it may go into the interim guidelines if we agree on its usefulness (I doubt it). --Daniel Mietchen 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The specific need not go into the charter, but the charter should note that there are labels for confidence labels on articles in mainspace, that new articles are not necessarily reviewed, but that problem articles may be withdrawn from public space. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bylaws
This idea of byelaws needs to be very carefully spelled out: as things are, they look very rough. Actually, this looks a little like the so-called Schengen Acquis -- the body of secret rules that the Schengen Treaty administration drew up, and then had to put into proper legal form when Schengen was incorporated in the EU Treaties. We started to see what arbitrary decisions people make when they are not visible decisions :-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There could be two types of bylaws &mdash; (1) the interim guidance, (2) explanations of the reasoning behind the phrasings, at least for the fundamental principles. --Daniel Mietchen 16:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Replacement of people in special functions

 * We do not yet have provisions for replacing any one in a Special function. Daniel Mietchen 21:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

honor code
I'm in the middle of applying to Ph.D. programs. I was just now asked to agree to the "honor code" at UT Austin. It states: "The core values of The University of Texas at Austin are learning, discovery, freedom, leadership, individual opportunity, and responsibility. Each member of the university is expected to uphold these values through integrity, honesty, trust, fairness and respect toward peers and community." We should consider distilling the spirit of Citizendium in the same way, including it in the charter as a foundation for our fundamental policies and asking new members to agree to it when they join. --Joe Quick 17:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. D. Matt Innis 17:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I like that idea a lot, especially if it captured an honor goal of doing one's best to avoid bias and present relevant sides of an issue. That doesn't mean that one author will be perfectly balanced, but it can mean one tries to do so. It means one accepts this is not a place for advocacy.


 * Dare I ask if the code applies to MBA and JD programs? :-(  Howard C. Berkowitz 17:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like an agreeable statement of principles. Russell D. Jones 17:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal of contributions
should probably not be allowed. See also the forum discussion on this. --Daniel Mietchen 01:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Joe Quick 01:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of complete articles being deleted, no withdrawal. I can think of talk page discussions, or even sentences in articles (or sections) that an editor might write that might be a good idea to remove -- especially if found to be in error or potentially libelous.  Obviously, anyone can remove sentences in articles that they have written, but not entire articles.  In the case of sentences written by someone who has been blocked and they request that we delete it, I think we might occasionally obligue someone who is embarrassed by something that they have written.  However, if someone has written good material but they no longer want to be associated with Citizendium, no, contributions should remain. So, I guess that if our charter were to include that, once written, all content is the propery of Citizendium, that would give *us* the option of whether to delete something.  As a constable, I would delete something if the request is reasonable. D. Matt Innis 02:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think authors though should be given the option for applying to have an article deleted provided they are the sole editor. Once someone else contributes, it's no longer possible to delete. The decision to delete an article should be up to the editorial council for consideration. Meg Ireland 05:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have CZ:Leaving the project, which covers up all relevant matters rather well. --Daniel Mietchen 10:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CZ:Leaving the project: Too wordy and too political. Citizens who have been banned (have we had any?) should have their pages locked and/or wiped.  Explanations are not required.  For citizens who wreck rooms (Citizen Kane?) before leaving are just behaving badly and having not been banned for any violation of policy are still bound by policy.  So I see that whole writing a parting shot thing just superfluous.  Tag this policy for revision or expungency.
 * Regarding article content: it's a wiki; be bold. Jones 18:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The principles involved here are basically two: the rights of the individual and the rights and protection of CZ as an institution. Any policy notated has to balance these two things carefully, and in particular not commit to actions that impinge on the integrity of CZ. For example, deleting discussions could make final outcomes look opaque and even incomprensible; or, we cannot completely delete editor pages because of the role of editors on CZ, and the need for transparency. Generally, I am not in favour of notating strong rights for people who have been banned! Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking more in terms of authors who leave the project voluntarily, perhaps more than being banned. I still believe that the deletion of any articles should be up to the discretion of the EC, rather than a straight 'no'. Meg Ireland 07:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At a certain point CZ should exercise its power to protect itself. If people wish to vent about CZ there are plenty of places where and how that can be done.  What sort enhancement to our credibility does it give us to have these parting blusters on our site?  It just seems convoluted and time-consuming to go through this process of justifying and fairly portraying the last words of a malcontent.  And who is really going to want to take the time and energy for that?  So, that's where I ended up (below) with regard to Citizens' user pages; if you want a screed against CZ on your user page, fine (provided it's legal and not-offensive).  Why does it have to be vetted through CZ?  I'm more in agreement with Martin on banned citizens.  And yes, I see the importance of maintaining talk pages and the records of administration.  Those pages, though, can be archived and protected.  Russell D. Jones 19:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Interim guidance
I rephrased the section on new editors. --Daniel Mietchen 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not persuaded that there needs to be interim guidance. The charter states that it becomes active the day after it is ratified.  The charter should specify immediate elections for all administrative bodies.  One half the members of each body shall sit for one-year terms, renewable for two consecutive terms.  The charter should then also state at which times annual elections should be held.  Universal holidays seem obvious, but I doubt that people will have time to take out of their holiday schedules for CZ stuff.  How about Nov. 11?  I'll bet we all have a holiday then....  (Sorry, I wandered off topic)  Russell D. Jones 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion and thank you for your patience. As I am beginning to understand this, the "Interim Guidance" policy is to supersede all other policies until such time that the MC and EC have reviewed and locked all charter-related policies.  Is that a correct interpretation?  Russell D. Jones 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. There is going to be some delay, and all legal texts of this type end up with transitional measures to smoothe the transition. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

from professionlism section
I've removed this:


 * A set of persons of mature judgment &mdash; hereafter the Constables &mdash; shall be specially empowered to enforce rules laid out in this Charter or its accompanying documents. The enforcement of these rules &mdash; up to and including the ejection of participants from the project &mdash; is to be carried out with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, including in those situations where the applicability of existing rules may be unclear.

and would like to replace it with:


 * A set of persons of mature judgment &mdash; hereafter the Constables &mdash; shall be specially empowered to enforce rules laid out in this Charter or its accompanying documents. The enforcement of these rules is to be carried out with reasonable pragmatism and leniency, only in those situations where the applicability of existing rules is clear, and may be appealed.

As you can see there is a big difference, so I though I should run it through the discussion page first. D. Matt Innis 21:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I will agree that some improvement is needed, I disagree that our process should be so cautious that no action can be taken if the rules are not clear. There are real-world "soft" laws such as "disturbing the peace" that can get an arrest, and let a court adjudicate. I have, however, seen all too many occasions where someone, often intending to be disruptive, engaged in behavior that was not explicitly forbidden, yet clearly interfered with a pleasant experience for many. Need I say Martin Cohen and his many appeals, which still wound up with an attack in the media?


 * We have said the Constables have mature judgment. Trust it. If a Constable makes too many unreasonable rulings, the Management Council (or other body) needs to review the actions, just as the Editorial Council should track the performance of Editors. In the real world, there will be new people who know neither rule nor custom, and judgment will be needed to keep things from turning into Wikipedian chaos. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * An unreasonable ruling according to who? We still want this to be a free society - which means we need to abide by laws, not the whims of those in charge.  I think it is pretty obvious that Hayford and I feel differently about different people on the project, but because our rules are well defined, our personal beliefs don't mean much so there is not much disagreement about what we can do about it.  For those with potential to be blocked, it is equivolent to a death penalty, so shouldn't be taken lightly.


 * You bring up a good case in point about constable enforcement. Martin Cohen was not a constable issue and still shouldn't be. He was an editor who had a content disagreement.  Constables should not interfere with those issues.  Had there been an active EC with a dispute resolution system in place there might have been a better outcome.  He was eventually blocked for revealing a personal email - which is a behavior issue that is explicitly prohibited in our constable blocking policies.  Had he not released that email, he might well still be here.  It's a shame that the editorial council never had the opportunity to find a solution to your struggle.  But, hopefully, our new charter will help solve that.  But, the solution is not to give constables the right to block anyone based on something as picky as "I'm tired of getting complaints about you" or "you're a fringe crank" and "we don't want you here".


 * Currently we have to give a written statement of why they were warned or blocked and cite the exact rule that was broken. I don't see anything wrong with that remaining the same.
 * D. Matt Innis 02:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, I was thinking about the issue, which I consider behavior and Constable, of his weird formatting of talk pages. That wasn't content. Further, I seem to remember, at the time, even when I pointed to fairly strong language against what he was doing, got the author of the language to explain that he meant the text to be nondiscretionary, you still pointed at the possibility that there might, somewhere, be a loophole.


 * Personally, I see much less wrong with releasing a private email than disrupting a talk page. There are times, for example, where the only safeguard against email harassment is publicity. I reserve the right to insult telemarketers or spammers, because they chose to contact me. If I agree to email privacy, that's one thing, but if someone privately flames me, I did not give them immunity.


 * I don't think we are going to agree; I look at this as something like the "broken windows" theory of urban renewal. It wasn't a matter of "fringe crank", but willful insistence on arguing and making life difficult for other Citizens. My opinion, over time, is that more people have left because a few people were given too much leeway than that too many were ejected. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right about the fact that we probably won't agree here, so we'll have to leave it in the hands of others to decide for us. I saw the whole thing as two editors that had a fundamental disagreement about content and when there was no editorial guidance, they began to make life difficult for each other - breaking windows along the way.  While banning one or the other might solve that particular problem, it didn't solve the larger problem of no guidance. In my opinion, since we want expertise to prevail (unlike wikipedia), we need to let editors make the decisions about who is correct and who needs to back down, not let constables squelch a disturbance before it even gets heard based on anything but expertise about the subject.


 * D. Matt Innis 03:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the existing text is that it doesn't specify who or what institution will eject Citizens, or under what conditions, or exactly how Citizens' rights will be protected. Although the Charter is a basic document, it would be a mistake to set out principles without specifying basic parameters of their operation: that includes the underlying rationale and limits of a policy, the proportionality associated with it, the institutions and mechanisms for implementing it. So, although I agree with Howard that such an option of expulsion should exist, it has to be circumscribed. I'll try to think of some wording/ideas in the next 2 days. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've given some thought to this issue. My opinion is the following: (1) we cannot ask the constabulary to do anything other than follow clear rules; (2) there is a need for potential "offences" to be adjudicated and possibly sanctioned; (3) we have not defined the role of EiC, and his/her relations with other institutions. So, I offer a draft set of rules to deal with this, below:

Under the professionalism section

Exceptionally, Citizens in persistent breach of the spirit or letter of CZ rules can be expelled from the project by joint decision of the Editor-in-Chief and the Ombudsman, subject to appeal under the Final Arbitration procedure.

A new section, for the EiC

''An Editor-in-Chief shall be appointed, with a term of office of four years renewable once, by simple majority of each of the Editorial Council and Management Committee. The functions of this office shall be:
 * 1) to ensure day-to-day smooth functioning of the Citizendium,
 * 2) to facilitate the practical implementation of CZ editorial policy as defined by its governing institutions
 * 3) to make interim editorial decisions (in consultation with other editors)
 * 4) to carry out any other tasks as required by this Charter or decisions of the governing bodies.''

We also need to have some provision for the office of Chief Constable. I leave that alone for the time being. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Exceptionally, Citizens in persistent breach of the spirit or letter of CZ rules can be expelled from the project by joint decision of the Editor-in-Chief and the Ombudsman, subject to appeal under the Final Arbitration procedure.


 * Constables still need to be able to eject people (sometimes even after only one offense), but only under clear rules and the decision should be appealable as well.


 * We also need to make clear that professionalism standards are enforced by constables for everyone - including the EIC and ombudsman.


 * D. Matt Innis 14:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider that there remain the various options of blocking from articles or talk pages, from topics, or full suspension without invoking a "death penalty".


 * Without challenging the idea, what are the duties of the Chief Constable? Remember we have designated the MC to appoint and supervise Constables. What is the role of the "Chief of Police"? Perhaps to give a second opinion on behavior? If so, there may need to be a deputy should the Chief not be available.


 * Does special authority reside in the Chair of the Editorial Council (and perhaps vice chair) before the EiC? I really don't want situations where all serious decisionmaking goes to one person. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Matt should propose the clear rules/sanctions for the Constabulary to control or expel people: he is the expert among us. I agree we need something on the professionalism clause applying to all, including officials. My clause is the ultimate penalty without breaking clear rules, so needs to be constrained. On serious decisionmaking, my formulation is only that the EiC makes interim practical decisions that can be challenged. I do not advise giving out power elsewhere, but it might be a good idea to allow any of the members of the EC or MC or the Ombudsman to challenge the legality of a decision by the EiC. Currently, only the person(s) directly affected can appeal. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see why the Chair of the Editorial Council and the EiC should be different persons, as long as we have a Management Council for non-editorial matters. --Daniel Mietchen 19:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) For two very good reasons: (1) we already tried it, and... (2) it concentrates too much power in one set of hands, and contravenes the principle of separation of powers. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to discuss the idea of having a President or some such person, separate from the heads of the Editorial and Management functions. That role, I suspect, would be more Citizendium's ambassador to the outside. I'm not sure why we need a Decider in Chief, given we are exploring, based on experience, other governance mechanisms. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, at Martin's request, and from my understanding from the above conversation, here is my attempt to present the constable section of professionalism:

''A set of persons of mature judgment &mdash; hereafter the Constables &mdash; shall be specially empowered to encourage collaboration in accordance with the ideals set forth in Citizendium's Professionalism Policy. Constable authority is restricted to matters of behavior and they shall not be construed to intervene in matters of content, which is under the purview of the Editorial Council and Editor-in-Chief. Constable tools may include: advice and instruction on wiki or through Citizen email, removal of offensive text, and warning and banning of users according to the Constabulary Blocking Procedures. The enforcement of these rules is to be carried out with reasonable pragmatism and leniency without prejudice as to Citizen status or position and only in those situations where the applicability of existing rules is clear. Decisions by constables may be appealed through the the appropriate adjudication process.''

Exceptionally, in questions of disputes concerning content, Citizens in persistent breach of the spirit or letter of CZ rules can be expelled from the project by joint decision of the Editor-in-Chief and the Ombudsman, subject to appeal under the Final Arbitration procedure.

I would expect the CZ:Professionalism and CZ:Constabulary Blocking Procedures to be locked and the charter to design a specific protocol for amending those articles, ie. majority vote of some quorum..

D. Matt Innis 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Expertise
Daniel, I'd like to revert to the more specific earlier version, if, for no other reasons, for public relations purposes. CZ has acquired a reputation for being too academically oriented.

Further, I do personally consider it a matter of fundamental principles to establish that expertise can be established by other than academic credentials. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Missed that one here but had already replied per email. What about "Expertise will be recognized as it is custom in the profession" or some such, perhaps modulated by some EC approval? This would avoid academic connotations and leave everyone in (possibly including fringe advocates, however). --Daniel Mietchen 23:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We need more detailed principles, without relying exclusively on academic achievements. I'll draft something in the next days and put it here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps: academic qualifications and/or a proven community or work related experience over a set period of time? Meg Ireland 07:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fundamental policies
It seems artificial to me to separate these policies into so many circumscribed and separate pieces. They make much more sense if they are placed in the context that each provides for the others. I suggest that, without actually eliminating anything, we reorganize into three sections: article style (including the objective/neutral/comprehensive text we discussed above as well as accessibility and mention of expertise), article development (professionalism, expertise again, collaboration and being bold), membership (registration and real names, professionalism again, expertise again). External partners isn't really core, or at least not yet; it should be within the section describing the role of the Management Council.

These are big changes, so I wanted to bring them up here before I jump in to do it? Any concerns? Suggestions? --Joe Quick 14:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe they can be reorganised, but I would prefer to sort out more basic principles before changing their actual location in the text. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly the basic principles are important but I think many of these are too closely interrelated to effectively engage them separately. "Boldness" is the best example: it is contrary to much of what Citizendium stands for if it is not in the context of professionalism, collaboration and objectivity.  I think we'll get farther if we think about the big picture and how they fit together; that's how we got so far with objectivity, neutrality and comprehensiveness. I'll think about how I would express them in context and report back.--Joe Quick 17:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * One way to organize them coherently would be to come up with something like the "code of honour" (as discussed previously) for the mission statement that includes the central prinicples. In the Fundamental policies section, we can then detail these principles either one by one, or in groups &mdash; hard to tell which one would be better until we haven't agreed on the final phrasing of the mission statement. --Daniel Mietchen 19:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Referendums
Currently, the electorate is described as being relevant to adoption and modifications of the charter. What about referendum-style votes on things that do not require changes to the charter but are normally handled through the EC/MC? --Daniel Mietchen 08:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea of representational democracy (as opposed to direct democracy) is that the representatives of the citizenry should take decisions on behalf of the citizens for the following reasons: (a) to avoid the impracticality and bother of weekly referenda; (b) to avoid the dangers of shaping referenda questions and therefore outcomes; (c)to utilise the acquired expertise of the representatives, which is unlikely to be possessed by the citizens. These principles are equally valid in the cases of the MC/EC in CZ, in my view. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The representational democracies I have experienced so far all lacked in what has come to be called evidence-based decision-making, and referenda can alleviate this problem to a certain degree (and even though referenda may be suggested in some democracies on a weekly or even daily basis, notability thresholds keep their actual frequency at much lower rates). I think, however, that CZ may have other means to the same end (e.g. giving Task Managers the right to be heard in MC/EC on matters concerning their Task), so I won't dwell on this any further. --Daniel Mietchen 12:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree that the quality of decision-making in recent decades has been terrible, and as I am sometimes on the margins of political decision-making I am also painfully aware that the concept of evidence-based decisions is unknown to our politicians and bureaucrats. I am more inclined to see it as a failure of quality control of personnel, especially in political parties, than a failure of the system. I hope that on CZ we will have better quality people: thus far, we have. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess as long as we try to assign functions based on merit, we shouldn't run into the problems political systems have. And having the Party of Constables stand in elections against the Party of Authors and the Party of Editors is, fortunately, not a realistic scenario. Perhaps we should also try not to overdo the comparison to offline legal systems, which are simply not always applicable to the project we intend to manage here. --Daniel Mietchen 21:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * With Hayford involved, it would be a Constable Party rather than a Party of Constables; his idea of a police state has only martinis in common with James Bond. :-) Howard C. Berkowitz 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Workgroups again
This is what we have currently:

See also CZ:Workgroups

''The Editorial Council may create and reorganize workgroups to arrange areas of content, and to encourage collaboration among Authors and Editors in areas of expertise. Workgroup members will build top-level articles and knowledge structures for the articles in a discipline.''

''The Editorial Council shall elaborate a strategy and policy on topic-specific collaboration, chiefly based on CZ:Workgroups and some accepted ontology or other knowledge categorization scheme. In addition to subject specific Workgroups, there shall be a General Workgroup with jurisdiction over general issues of style and content, and for articles of very wide scope. There may be, in addition, interdisciplinary or specialized Subgroups. In addition, there may be Area Groups, as for (e.g., Science or Science & Technology) to deal with broad issues affecting many but not all workgroups (e.g., units of measurement).''

''When there are disputes on content issues, assuming there are multiple Editors in a workgroup, they will attempt to resolve the dispute. Failing agreement, the matter will be taken to the Ombudsman, and then to the Editorial Council.''

Our current CZ:Editor_Policy policy guidelines contradict all of the next three paragraphs. To encourage participation, CZ works to keep editors and workgroups from developing heirarchies that direct anything - especially from the top down. This is a major change in our current fundamentals. I'll try to develop something that would be more in line with what we are. D. Matt Innis 01:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This is our current CZ policy on workgroups that I think we are directly changing with the above section:
 * Workgroups reactive, not proactive; and other restrictions.
 * It makes up no part of the purpose of editorial workgroups to direct the work done on the wiki; that is, while workgroups may establish some general policy for an area, its oversight over actual work done is reactive, not proactive. Similarly, it is far beyond the remit of a workgroup to make up new rules, that apply only to the articles in its care, that make it difficult for whole classes of people to work where, when, and as they want.  In short, workgroups will not be permitted to make the wiki operate any less as a wiki.  Furthermore, a workgroup may not establish policy that, if established at all, should plausibly govern a broader set of articles than the articles in the care of the workgroup.
 * D. Matt Innis 01:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It may be a good change, if it means that Editors and workgroups emphasize developing things in context, and writing high-level articles. There is a difference between giving orders and stating objectives. Again, this is something to be discussed, because the two of us are generally at the opposite extremes of author freedom. I don't think my view is unreasonable, or even inescapable, if we claim to be expert-guided and quality controlled.


 * I might feel differently if we had hordes of people writing, and we didn't seem to have so much trouble with orphaned advocacy articles. The existing guidelines don't work. I'm afraid, at times, that your model isn't much different than WP; it feels hostile to Editors. Howard C. Berkowitz 01:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that, though both of our hearts are in the same place, we disagree on how to get there, so it is important that we let others see both sides. I am not concerned with orphaned articles at this point as I feel that they will all eventually be absorbed and linked in due time as more editors and authors join the project.  This isn't my model and nothing I've written is hostile to editors, only inviting to participation.  No, we aren't much different than wikipedia -  we build on what works and change what will result in more accurate information.  All we need to do is we elevate experts to a position where they can help guide the content of articles and let them teach. WP gave experts fewer rights than even Joe Blow off the street due to conflict of interest.  We do value expertise, but that doesn't mean we give them a club.  They tend to use it to claim ownership - something that needs to be avoided at all costs.


 * Here is the other section of that same editor policy that we are contradicting:


 * Subject workgroups are divided into discipline and subdiscipline workgroups, but do not form a hierarchy.
 * A discipline workgroup, such as philosophy or physics, may form workgroups for subdisciplines, such as ethics or particle physics, and assign classes of articles to those workgroups. While a discipline workgroup may establish policy and standards for all the articles in the discipline, that policy and those standards are interpreted by the subgroups; there is no chain of command or of appeal from subdiscipline workgroups to discipline workgroups.


 * As you can see, these are in direct opposition to each other. D. Matt Innis 01:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Well, I've given it some thought and really the only thing we need in the charter is:

See also CZ:Workgroups

''For purposes of determining editorial and approval priveledges on Citizendium articles, editors will be divided into workgroups according to any fashion determined useful by the Editorial Council. Development of any form of heirarchy of workgroups or within a workgroup is strictly prohibited.''

Everything else should be determined by the Editorial Council as needed. D. Matt Innis 02:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot agree with banning hierarchy. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The Editorial Council oversees the workgroups; that's your hierarchy. The EC will settle any disputes that can't be settled by equally empowered editors within the workgroups. If we allow any form of hierarchy within a workgroup, then it is just a matter of time before one person develops enough power to overule anyone else and the exodus will begin. We have to legislate it out.  It is our only way of leveling the playing field among editors.


 * That is not to say that certain editors won't develop the respect that earns them a certain amount of leeway from other editors, but that does not have to be legislated, it happens naturally. They just cannot declare that what they say goes. They will have to convince others with their reasoning - which, like mine, is good some days, and not so good on others. But, ultimately with a level playing field, the "best idea" wins rather than the "biggest editor". D. Matt Innis 04:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * We've been talking about two different things. I've been talking about hierarchy among workgroups, not workgroup editors. Think area group such as "social science", psychology, cognitive psychology and interdisciplinary psychological warfare.


 * I'm not opposed to having hierarchy among editors if it seems like a good idea in a specific group for a specific reason, but this is a quite different issue than content-based workgroup hierarchy. Matt, I'm not demanding of great organization and rules, but I often sense you want the Charter to make it very difficult to have rules. I was a libertarian when I was 25, but later saw more of the world.  Howard C. Berkowitz 04:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about hierarchies *within* workgroups and *among* workgroups and for the same reason - keeping the playing field level for all individual editors and keeping the content decisions in the EC. I'm all about having and making rules that encourage participation and creativity for people of all backgrounds. D. Matt Innis 05:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I am very strongly opposed to these proposals on workgroups. There are not even active editors in half the existing WGs, and the varibale geometry that could be created in the future might well be a nightmare -- discouraging contributions and making unnecessary bureaucracy. The latter the Charter is committed to avoiding, so let's avoid it. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what we definitely need is to structure content in a hierarchical fashion. Whether and how Workgroups can help to achieve this should be left to the Editorial Council. Certainly, developing a set of CZ:Core Articles within each field, and to harmonize these sets across fields should not be forbidden but, on the contrary, encouraged. But this already is at a level of detail not suitable for the charter proper and should rather go into the interim guidance. One thing I would like to add to the interim guidance on workgroups is a General Workgroup that comes in if a subject can plausibly be assigned to more than three existing Workgroups. Editorship in this General Workgroup would then be restricted to people who have approved a certain number of articles (one or two may be a good start) in other workgroups, and articles falling under this regime would require at least one approving Editor from that General Workgroup. --Daniel Mietchen 12:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I'm not clear on what the purpose is for your General Workgroup, I would entertain ideas concerning workgroups that have functions that help develop articles, ie. copyediting, neutrality checking, formatting, etc.. I think these are things that a well functioning EC can do - though there is nothing that says individuals can't do it on their own anyway. D. Matt Innis 15:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point, Daniel. "Structuring content in a hierarchial fashion" is fine. It's "structuring editors in a hierarchial fashion" that is counterproductive.  For example, no-one should be able to direct what others do first.  That doesn't mean that a group can't get together and decide that they want to work on the core articles first. And we don't need this in the charter. D. Matt Innis 15:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that additional structures to check for spelling, consistent narratives, neutrality, formatting etc. but would leave this to a later point in time and to the EC to decide. However, we already regularly have the problem that three workgroups do not cover the whole scope of an article, and no guidelines are in place (or indeed even practically implementable) to choose between the different alternatives. I gave some examples in this forum post, another more recent one would be scientific method, for which Editors from the Earth Sciences or Astronomy Workgroups would certainly qualify. The purpose of bringing in the General Workgroup in such cases would be to make sure that expert perspectives from all all relevant fields are adequately taken into account upon approval. A second useful cross-workgroup activity is the harmonization of Core Articles across fields, and such a General Workgroup may be in a good position to oversee the process. --Daniel Mietchen 15:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand what you're saying. Basically, there's nothing that stops people from adding appropriate workgroups when there is less than three (other than being afraid to add something because you aren't sure you can - not being bold).  But, when there are more than three workgroups already assigned, have you seen an instance where there was a unsolved dispute about which ones should be on the list?  In other words, did the article specific collaboration not work to pick the best ones?  D. Matt Innis 16:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I've seen many such problems; indeed, in the last few days, I've been frustrated in assigning workgroups to some articles I've written, since I honesty believed that more than three of the existing ones were relevant. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you considered just adding the one that you are in and approaching other editors to add their own workgroup. You might find it a better way to get them to participate early on?  If you add the three that you think should be there, that doesn't leave any room for a chemistry editor to come in later and add his workgroup when discussing rocket fuel ;)


 * When working on the Intelligent Design article, there was much vitriol over including the Biology workgroup as some didn't want to be associated with the article. Unfortunately, when they removed the workgroup, they removed their editor status as well.  Just because a workgroup may belong on an article, doesn't mean that those workgroup editors will endorse the article. We had a history editor that put the History workgroup on all articles because everything has a history.  If there was a spot left, no big deal = let the history editor endorse the history section of the article.  But, if they were already taken, then it is time to evaluate the workgroups that are on the list. If there is a dispute, then the EC should be able to easily handle it. D. Matt Innis 01:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I gave some more examples in a forum post. Others would include scientific method, peer review, color, emotion or collaboration. --Daniel Mietchen 21:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, we can't make a workgroup take on a subject, just as we can't make an editor make a ruling on an article in his/her workgroup. All we can do is identify which workgroups are overseeing the article *at the time*.  If someone new comes along and wants to take some responsibility for the article, then the idea would have to be that the editors that are currently involved in the article would debate which workgroups result in the most reliable and credible article.  Disputes would go to the EC.  I think we should allow a way for specialist editors to carry some weight on sections of an article that are within their field without having to have their workgroup take full responsibility for the article; ie, a Biology editor should be able to correct anything written about evolution in the Intelligent Design article without claiming knowledge about ID or lending credibility to the concept.  The important thing is that the Approval tag shows what articles are overseeing the article.  Obviously the more respected the workgroups, the more respected the credibility. D. Matt Innis 02:39, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Additions/changes
I have added some of Matt's text to "Professionalism", inserted a new section on the Constabulary with amended text from Matt; inserted a new section on the EiC with my text above; transferred Ombudsman from the Admin section, added more on Assistant Ombudsmen; changed the section heading from "Governance" to "Personnel and governance". Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me, Martin, good choices. I've removed the "acceptance of guidance" and added "behavior" to the role of Constable from the professionalism section and organized it slightly diferently. D. Matt Innis 14:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. Those are clear improvements, thanks. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Citizen's Rights
We have brought this up in other places, but there should be a statement of the rights of citizens. There is one such statement in the section on the "electorate" which should properly be in a section dealing with the rights of citizens, "all citizens shall have the right to vote in elections as specified in this charter." "All citizens shall have the right to appeal decisions of editors, constables, Ombudsman, and EiC to higher authorities." There is another statement somewhere about citizens having the right to write without interference (I forget the exact wording); All citizens shall have power to control content in the user space provided it is not offensive, in violation of the laws of the Territoriality in which CZ servers reside, or in violation of this charter. All citizens shall have the right to present evidence in any dispute resolution. All citizens shall have the right to join and participate in any group organized on CZ. All policies, whether established by this charter, the EC, MC, EiC, Constabulary, and/or Ombudsman shall apply equally to all citizens. No citizen shall be denied any of these rights except by the due process of judicial administration as outlined in this charter. Russell D. Jones 18:16, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and your list is a very good start. D. Matt Innis 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This might well be part of a preamble that includes the "code of honor" or whatever we call it; I like the idea of combining those two, which reflect both rights and responsibilities. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Citizen" has never been defined, and this should be done in the charter. I wonder if we should delete "Authors", replace with Citizens and define rights and obligations in that section. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:38, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Citizen is indeed more general. I can think of roles where someone might choose to contribute as neither an author nor an editor, such as software development. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A 'Citizen' is someone who has been formerly registered with the project and approved for editing by the Constabulary. Meg Ireland 06:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Meg's definition and am still wondering whether any of the situations considered in the Charter would treat Citizens in this sense and Authors (however defined) differently. Given that all Citizens should have the same basic rights (as stated rightfully somewhere else), such situations are unlikely to come up, and so we may indeed consider dropping the title of Author (which could also help people understand that they don't "own" CZ articles, even if they authored them). --Daniel Mietchen 22:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent point about "ownership", which, to me, justifies the substitution of Citizen for Author. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 16:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Interim Guidance
This is explicitly not part of the Charter, but is intended as a way of temporarily capturing the experience of the Charter Committee on things that are now dysfunctional. The idea is that it will go onto existing policy pages, which will be locked, but any such guidance can be changed or deleted once the appropriate Committee is operational. I see them as having a lifetime of 3-6 months.

Why the interim period? Consider this timeline. Let's assume the Charter is final in 2 weeks, and it is immediately ratified, a 2-week process (actually slightly more, due to international time zones). From past experience, it will take at least 2 weeks to get a list of eligible (i.e., active candidates), have them post positions, and then have 2 weeks more for election. If you consider our experience on the Charter committee, with, in a way, a smaller scope of work, it took us at least 2 weeks to get organized. In this timetable, something, somewhere is bound to go wrong and have more time taken.

So, it's going to be 3 months or so before the Editorial Council and Management Committee (or whatever they are finally named) begin operation. How long will it take them to discuss complex issues, such as approval levels, workgroups, appeal procedures, etc.? How long will it take to get Task Managers into place?

My hope is to bring together things already informally discussed, with the communal knowledge of some experienced citizens captured to deal with some of the most blatant problems. The reason that this isn't in the Charter is that the Councils/Committees have the authority to change it, without ratification or referendum, as soon as needed. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that we need some way to bridge the time until these bodies can make their first decisions on the issues the Charter delegated to them. Calling it "interim guidance" is fine with me, but perhaps we should add some lifetime determinant into the section. For instance, we could advice that a given body implement a replacement for "their" share of the guidance within three months after its constitution or so, or we could constitutionally tag all interim sections for deletion within, say, six months. The problems with this is: What if this body does not manage to make that decision within three months, or if no replacement for an interim guidance is available within six months? We should have some default paragraph covering those situations, preferably a simple combination of the fundamental principles. --Daniel Mietchen 22:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Who enforces the charter?

 * If someone has a complaint that someone or some Body is violating the charter, who will be responsible for interpreting the validity of the claim? D. Matt Innis 18:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If I may be permitted an analogy in U.S. jurisprudence, the vast number of violations are of U.S. statutes or administrative law, not the Constitution itself. Give a reasonable set of rules/policies/interim guidance, which presumably will be vetted against the Charter when written, it should be rather rare that someone can speak, in a vacuum, of a violation of the Charter. The question will be more if a policy violates it. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Who will decide if a particular action falls under the purview of the EC or the MC? In other words, who decides if the problem is content (EC) or behavior (MC)? D. Matt Innis 02:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The best I can say is "Reasonable people; sufficiently reasonable that they were elected." You have made a point about too many rules. This is exactly why judges have some discretion. There are no rules that tell the Supreme Court of the United States whether to grant certiorari or not; it's decided in a judicial conference. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I will draft something here over the next days, to put in place constitutional checks without creating any more personnel or institutions. You can see if you like it, when it's done :-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 08:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit concerned about this becoming a theoretical blind alley, if it's much more than a general principle that policies should be consistent with the Charter, and any person concerned with policy drafting has the right and obligation to bring up particular points. Again, I emphasize that in my knowledge of constitutional law, primarily but not dealing with the U.S., the preponderance of challenges to constitutionality deal not directly with a violation of the constitution, but whether a law written under it is consistent with the constitution should have been adopted and applied.


 * Matt, I'd like to see a specific example of what concerns you, and how it would not be addressed by a judgment of the constitutionality of a law, or, perhaps, of the way in which an official exercises power. Further, I'd like to see an example of how the relevant Council could not simply be petitioned to decide.  As an example of the complexity of the latter, see unitary executive theory, and consider that the structure we have described so far doesn't have any unitary executives. Martin, I'd ask you to rethink drafting language here, because I'm getting a sense that part of our delay is dealing with non-problems and things unlikely to become problems as stated. I'm especially concerned when the issue is one that delves into things best known from the law of nations, as opposed to the practices of voluntary membership organizations. Merely because something a matter of concern of actions of nations does not mean that it is applicable to the actions of individuals; consider,  the reasons there is a separate International Court of Justice and an International Criminal Court.


 * There's a saying among attorneys, "bad cases make bad law." Unless something is a common practice, I tend to rely on institutions to deal with it. Yes, the Supreme Court of the United States did have to stop laughing before they decided Dick Cheney's claim that the Office of the Vice President was essentially a fourth branch of government, not under the checks and balances of anything. No one suggested that the Constitution needed to be amended to deal with such lunacy. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Martin, I am looking forward to see what you have to write. Please continue. Howard, sorry if I confound your way of working, but it conflicts with mine. Bear with me as I bear with you. D. Matt Innis 19:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Beware, I support the right to arm bears.


 * I will continue to object when I see something that I consider inconsistent with the general body of knowledge of governance, and the reality that we keep asking for extensions.


 * If you are going to bear with me, then answer my question and give me an example, rather than simply asking to get more words about your fear. It's a two-way street. So far, I don't see a practical example of what you want to make rules about, given also that I have given some substantive examples of why your formulation tends to be a non-problem in governance. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I was trying to save time in case there was an obvious answer that I was not seeing but okay, I'll bite. Let's try this: When Editor Howard Berkowitz, who is involved in a content dispute with Editor Martin Cohen and emails the constabulary whining about Editor Martin Cohen not indenting his comments properly on the talk page and posting comments on the top of the talk page, is this something that the EC would handle or the MC and who decides that? And then when Editor Howard is not happy with the outcome and complains that it was a MC decision not a EC decision, then who decides when it's over? Currently, we just ban one of the users.  Will this charter change that?


 * I've got more and I'm pretty sure Hayford does, too, but I didn't want to waste more time with details.


 * I'm thinking that there has to be a judiciary somewhere as Martin was thinking. D. Matt Innis 20:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a judicial function, but we are creating too many offices, for rare situations, to create a separate judiciary. To take your specific example, the indentation problem would ultimately be decided by a panel consisting, at present, of three MC and three EC members, with the Ombudsman breaking a tie if there is one.


 * Perhaps, at some future time, the Citizenry will be large enough, and there will be sufficient work, to amend the Charter to have a separate and sustainable Judiciary. At the present time, I believe there is a rational compromise, with due regard for separation of powers, in the 3EC/3MC/Om formula.


 * The whining Howard will either respect the 3EC/3MC/Om decision, or leave, as it should be. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also think that these situations are appropriately covered by the 3EC/3MC/Om model and the trust we can assume for the elected people. --Daniel Mietchen 23:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Related
There is also this problem that this charter creates: This charter asks the MC and EC to draft policy. Those bodies may include some of us, but not all of us. It is possible that those Councils could draft policies that contravene the intent of the citizenry who ratified this charter. How does CZ enforce the charter upon the EC and MC? How do we make sure that the policies adopted by the MC and EC are consistent with the Charter. Right now, we're relying on the good will of the EC & MC participants, that may be enough. Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Russell, you said it better than I could. D. Matt Innis 21:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do I hear an echo of the issues before U.S. courts of trying to read the minds of the Framers? (see unitary executive theory for discussions of what was really meant in some of the Federalist Papers, as opposed to what is actually in the Constitution?) Citizendium is not a nation struggling for compromise. This discussion seems to be oscillating between believing that trust is a fundamental assumption, and what comes across as extreme suspicion.


 * From my perspective, this is getting into areas of constitutional law that ultimately need to be decided by courts. Yes, the bodies may not include all of us; isn't that the definition of representative rather than direct democracy? Howard C. Berkowitz 21:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The outcome of trying to keep to a minimum the number of institutions and personnel required in CZ is that there is an element of trust placed in the integrity and probity of future actors. If we wanted to follow a country's approach, we would create a constitutional court whose sole task would be to protect the constitution. This would be absurd in CZ's case, so the duty to be guided by, and to interpret, the Charter is laid on the future members of the EC+MC. Our task is to allocate that duty carefully and reasonably. Nothing more. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 23:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, Martin. --Daniel Mietchen 23:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We've strayed
I've said it in emails behind the scenes and I will say it here. We've complicated the process with adding the MC and Ombudsman. They dod not appear to be fixing anything and are adding a level of beauracracy that seems too complicated for me to understand. I can't even get a question answered about it, so how are we going to manage when it has to put into practice.

Some say we need it to keep the constabulary in check, but that isn't even a problem. The constabulary works exactly as we have it written. The problm, to me is in the complicated Editorial Council. If we are going to fix anything, fix that and leave the rest alone. Keep it simple silly. D. Matt Innis 20:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What question did we not answer? The reason for having an Ombudsman is, as usual, to protect Citizens' rights. There are plenty of historical problems that need fixing, which the complaints procedure is supposed to do.


 * The point about the Constabulary is not so much to keep it in check, although the principle is not invalid, but to make it accountable in policy direction. I am not aware of any complaints about the behaviour of the Constabulary, so this is not the issue, at least for me. But direction and accountability are important, and it is true that there really is none, and one case where there is some grumbling over that.