CZ:Charter/Brainstorm

=Content=

General points

 * The encyclopedia author's task is to objectively recount what is already established and known about each topic, not to offer his or her own determinations about it. The composition of Citizendium articles is guided by "Editors", who have demonstrated expertise in what is established and known about the topics they oversee.
 * Citizendium is a knowledge project
 * We accumulate knowledge as an evolving network of theoretical concepts and practical experience
 * the still fledgling Citizendium currently seems to be the closest match for a cross-disciplinary scholarly wiki anchored in the real world
 * Just imagine if all authors currently writing up manuscripts about a subject were instead to coordinate their efforts by collaborating on a single but detailed and balanced citable reference in which the topic would be described in and linked to all relevant contexts, updated as new research results pass peer review.
 * Citizendium is a community of people from all walks of life and all corners of the world coming together for the sole purpose of creating a reliable and credible compendium of knowledge.
 * Citizendium should be a community of people who celebrate the diversity that comes with any large community and not only tolerate, but showcase, organize and discuss all the differences in culture, lifestyle and beliefs that make up what we know as Life.
 * Expert guidance on Citizendium is not simply fact checking. It is providing expert perspective to contextualize and interconnect knowledge.
 * the Charter's main purpose should be to dictate who (or what entity) has the responsibility to create and/or amend each policy and how they should do it, ie. - what percentage of a quorum can change a policy.
 * (an example of a goal from a talk archive, describing contextualization): macro-level article on the [top-level subject] that would put the many [subtopics]] into a broad context and then linking to (not redirecting from) an article called [very important subtopic] ... Much of the article also remains at the high policy level (national politicians deciding national direction and military objectives); there is no ground-level description of the wars here.
 * Knowledge should not be orphaned. Ideally, every article will have several links to and from other articles, and can be traced to a top-level article.
 * Not just facts: context, explication/exposition/explanation and exploration with the goal of engendering greater understanding
 * Systematic survey
 * In an encyclopedia article you would probably only describe an individual study if it was exceptionally important. An encyclopedia article is a display of breadth of knowledge more than depth.
 * Not a place for advocacy or "giving voices" to specific issues.
 * Breadth for top level articles, levels of depth for subpages, ie student/advanced/debate or clarifying a concept from the top level.
 * An expert knows both the breadth and depth of a field.
 * consensus among experts vs popular consensus
 * majority rule, minority rights
 * Everyone is a lay person nearly everywhere
 * Provide quality and naming standards.

Mission statement
(We need a first paragraph here)

Citizendium's mission is to be an actively cultivated repository of knowledge, which emphasizes objectivity, recognition of expertise, and providing a systematic survey of knowledge with meaningful linkage among topics. It provides a living, evolving framework in which new knowledge sources, amd means of presentation, are introduced by community consent. Its community of Citizens has policies managed transparently by its Citizens, who are not anonymous but take responsibility by using their real names. It is a knowledge ecology that will grow at a sustainable rate, emphasizing quality of information over raw quality. As a portal and a jumping off point for experts and novices alike in the pursuit of understanding, its content will default to the level of a college undergraduate, but may have subarticles identified as targeted from an elementary education to an advanced professional levels. The broad audience is assumed to want professional expertise, and to consist largely of knowledge workers and trainees in knowledge working professions Its content will bear identifiers giving the confidence of experts on the material. Content experts have verified real-world expertise. Depending on the content type, the review may be open collaboration, academic-style anonymous review, or signed opinion content by experts. Citizendium is not intended to be a forum for advocacy, and, where there are differences in informed opinion, the differences will be described unemotionally, and with context to help the reader make informed decisions. The writing process is not limited to rigid sourcing, but can contain synthesis and contextualization acceptable to subject experts, and that are also plausible to a broad editorial review.

Citizendium fundamentals

 * 1) Citizendium is a collaborative knowledge project that emphasizes objectivity and recognition of expertise.  The broad audience is assumed to want professional (or knowledgeable) expertise and confidence in their information.
 * 2) Citizendium provides a living, evolving repository for the systematic presentation of knowledge sources and ideas.
 * 3) Citizens commit themselves to transparent governance and responsible authorship by using their real names.
 * 4) Citizendium content will bear identifiers giving the confidence of its experts on the material. Content experts will have verified real-world expertise.


 * This looks like a really good start. Within the definitions, I would like to see dictionary-type definitions first and then an explanation of how they are to be understood in the context of the charter.  "Objectivity" would be something along the lines of: "Based on observations that are not biased by emotion or opinion.  At Citizendium, this means..."  Does that sound reasonable? --Joe Quick 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll move the longer parts to separate sections in the then, keeping just the dictionary-like definitions for the mouse-overs. --Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that they need to be moved, but I do think they should be a little more direct. The definition for "objectivity", in particular, includes things that are not at all implied by the word: expert knowledge, for example, is not necessary for someone or something to be objective. --Joe Quick 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they probably need to be shortened too. The text disappears after a second or so, shich is definitely not enough time for most people to read those blurbs. --Joe Quick 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The blurb for "real names" is very direct at the outset, but too long. The first bit would be a good model for other definitions, I think. --Joe Quick 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, here is my first try. Let's see how it works. --Daniel Mietchen 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think we're going a bit overboard with the whole definitions sideshow, to the point of it being a distraction from the main text of the charter. I think it can also serve to deter newcomers, who are likely to be bewildered or even alienated by all the idiosyncratic terminology. Shamira Gelbman 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, get rid of the Citizendium definitions and go with the dictionary definitions. If we aren't using the common dictionary use of the word, then we better explain it right there and then.  Otherwise, we look as though we're trying to pull some wool over some eyes.  By the way, I don't agree with the statement with our definition of objectivity, though I am fine with it with the dictionary version. D. Matt Innis 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please get rid of the mouse-overs. They are distracting, difficult to edit, and also a significant problem for users that have motor or visual disabilities.
 * I agree. KISS.  Russell D. Jones 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Matt, if you disagree with the objectivity definition, please propose one. For anyone, if you don't like text, offer substitutes. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with dropping the appendix and also the mouse-overs &mdash; they were just a demo, since the question of using them has been brought up. I do think, however, that we should make use of the wiki-native way of defining key terms (i.e. via links to pages or sections that host the charter-specific definitions) if they can be interpreted in various ways. --Daniel Mietchen 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the mouseovers being a distraction right now, maybe later. Howard, I suggest we use Encarta's definition of objectivity:
 * . ability to view things objectively: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices
 * . accuracy: the fact or quality of being accurate, unbiased, and independent of individual perceptions
 * However, I note that we seem to be avoiding the word Neutrality even though this is probably the place to use that word. It is close to the definition that we are currently offering as "objectivity".
 * D. Matt Innis 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I freely confess to avoiding "neutrality", because experience has shown that the original definition is not intuitive and has led to endless arguments. Right now, there is a great deal of confusion on the balance between expertise and neutrality. I'd rather see us avoid the baggage with those arguments and try to get a clear consensus. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the best that we can hope to do with the charter is set up the pathway to amend the current Neutrality policy. If we go ahead and use the word neutrality here (and wikilink it), then set up the process to alter any Citizendium policy, then at some point after the Charter is enacted, we can go about creating the committee that will address the neutrality policy.  Every policy deserves its own thoughtful and democratic process.
 * I like the word objective. I would even like to see it used somewhere.  But, I don't think the definition that we have introduced is "objectivity."  It is actually closer to "Neutrality" and needs to be brought up again when we review that policy.
 * Every great document has a preamble that gives everyone a sense of unity with a common purpose. I like the way Howard's first version did this.  Maybe we can still use it and then use this as the "Essential principles".. or something like that. It's not like we need to save space! D. Matt Innis 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Appendix
This section expands on the brief definitions available in the mouse-overs and contains detailed definitions of the key terms used in the charter, highlighting their use at Citizendium.

Knowledge
In the encyclopedic part of Citizendium, this will mean structured information that has been independently verified. In other parts, information can be deposited if it is presented such that it can be independently verified.
 * Disagree. We do not need to define knowledge in the charter. Philosophers have been trying to define knowledge since Plato.  I doubt that the eight of us are going to come up with something definitive in two weeks.  Russell D. Jones 03:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity
Information presented objectively is based on expert knowledge, which includes giving the context and justification for substantially supported views of the topic. When multiple responsible views exist, enough information must be given that the reader can understand the merits and weaknesses of the positions. There is no requirement to present every minority view in depth, although deprecated views may be identified.

Recognition of expertise
Each discipline has its own criteria; not even all academic fields have identical standards for expert level. Citizendium recognizes that verifiable experience in a field can be gained outside a campus.
 * Disagree, we have lots of topics for which there is no "academic field." This language perpetuates an ivory tower bias, that CZ seeks to mirror the academy. Russell D. Jones 03:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about:

Expertise will be respected. Expertise will be recognized through publications (including CZ), credentials, or employment. The Editorial Council will be empowered to establish other means by which expertise may be recognized.

Repository
A flexible environment for the storage of systematically retrievable and (“browsable”—find a better word) information of many types.

Systematic representation
Beyond objectivity, the information is presented in context. This may include subarticles that provide a less detailed introduction or advanced nuances of the topic. Compare-and-contrast methods, at least through Related Articles, let the reader consider parallel situations.

Real names
The default assumption will be that contributors will use verified real names for material that Citizendium will present to the public. Some exceptions may be allowed on a restricted basis. If an individual can satisfy the appropriate personnel administrators that using their real name would present a real danger, or perhaps prevent their participation due to employer rules, pseudonyms may be granted, although there still will be identity verification. If academic-style anonymous review is used, the reviewer(s) of individual articles may not be public,although their identities and credentials will have been verified, and a master list of reviewers periodically published as long as it is large enough that individual identities cannot be deduced.
 * Disagree with this. Please define 'real danger'. The loophole in this is someone claiming their life is threatened simply to avoid the CZ process. So how does one prove that the users life is in danger? It's based entirely on that users word. Nothing verifiable in that. [???]
 * Let me take a different example, where the request was overtaken by events. I knew a peacekeeping expert with an international organization, whose policy absolutely forbade public statements by its staff other than in the public relations office. The individual's current employment status and past experience was verifiable. I saw it as an opportunity to get material from a true expert. As it happened, the person was transferred to an area with no real Internet access, so the matter became moot. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From past experience Howard, when a loophole exists it will be exploited, mostly for ill. Just how many users on CZ are using pseudonyms and how many are active contributors? This I would like to know.
 * I suppose the Constabulary can tell us. Don't misconstrue; I would see this as an extremely rare case. If a government, for example, is repressive enough that it will take action for political commentary, that government is apt to have the signals intelligence capability to detect the source of messages. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case would not the solution be that the user ask a registered user in another country to add material for them to the article? After all if a government is that repressive enough and technologically sophisticated they would they trace the anonymous user anyway.

(undent)OK...let's move toward draft text. Do we simply rule "no pseudonyms" for general user accounts?

Journal-style review is a process that we have not yet included, although I think there are good arguments for it, especially during an expert shortage. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rule 'no pseudonyms' myself. If you recall my statement at the charter elections I strongly advocate a real names policy.
 * Currently we do have this policy and we have a couple of pseudonym users, but the only person with a list is the Chief Constable, I am not aware if any of them are currently active. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Try This
User accounts will be granted to individuals upon presentation of a verifiable real name. The Editorial Council will be empowered to make exceptions to this policy. Real names of any pseudonymous users will be maintained by the Chief Constable.

Russell D. Jones 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * How about just author accounts, editors have to have real names.. but the Constabulary will be empowered to make exceptions to this policy. D. Matt Innis 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, author accounts are okay with me. What will be the oversight for the constabulary?  With the Editorial Council, you'd need a majority vote.  Russell D. Jones 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the purpose of a pseudonym if everyone knows it? D. Matt Innis 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I am dead against both, so we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. IMO It undermines the real names policy when exceptions are made. Meg Ireland 03:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I might be amenable to NO pseudonyms. I am concerned that there might be some perfectly good reasons to be anonymous.  So far I can't think of any. D. Matt Innis 14:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I stumbled on one today. It's for a Eduzendium project for Dr. Badget's students.  I do remember some upset when it was created, but the okay came from the very top for constables to create that account. D. Matt Innis 00:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you remembered that; I saw no reason for the pseudonyms. No other CZ project needed them, and if the student identities are that sensitive, they can stay on a university wiki such as Russell's. It certainly had zero community input. The project didn't produce much, did it? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I could be amenable to NO pseudonyms as well. There is a strong case to be made for equality and democracy.  If you are in such a predicament that writing on CZ would somehow physically endanger you, then you have bigger problems than editing a wiki and probably shouldn't.


 * On further consideration, I think I've joined the NO pseudonym side. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Russell's comment above that the eligible ones probably have other things to do, particularly when we stress that CZ is not a place for advocacy. If, however, the information they would add here were to be made available elsewhere (under anonymity, if they wish), it could still be incorporated here by someone else who uses their real name. This also means that the existing anonymous accounts would have to be discontinued accordingly (Did they ever contribute anything? I will probably never know, and so be it.). --Daniel Mietchen 14:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Parallel issue
We do need to make provisions for external reviewers who do not have and do not want user accounts. In the usual academic process, their names are fully known and verified to the journal editor, who, in our process, would be the Approvals Manager. If a classic journal process were followed, however, their names would not be made known to the specific author, although they might be made available to approving authors. Most journals do publish an annual list of all their reviewers' names.

In some cases, using the journal process, the reviewer offers to become known to the author and interact; I've done this both as a reviewer and author.

It's important, for several reasons, to consider this for Citizendium. First, with our editor shortage, it is possible to get external reviews from people who will do it as a favor to the editor or author, but simply don't want to become Citizens. Milt, I believe, has had this done while he was acting as Editor; I did it as an Author, before there was an approvals manager and for articles that were approved a year later when we had enough Editors.

As Daniel and others have mentioned, we might actually choose to introduce a supplementary academic-style approval process, which could encourage some publish-or-perish academics to contribute content that they can cite. We'd have to have a reviewer mechanism to do this. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm okay with allowing this to be a Editorial Council decision. D. Matt Innis 14:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * At the Charter level, we simply need to make sure we do not forbid the appropriate body, presumably the Editorial Council, to make such a decision. Having too-restrictive language on "real names only" in the Charter could be a problem. I'm not suggesting the Charter specifically set up the mechanism, although I wouldn't be averse to mentioning it, perhaps in a preamble or even a supplementary note.


 * There has been concern that some things may sound like press releases, but, at some level, we are going to need press releases, or at least Internet visibility, of how we diffeentiate. If, for example, some academics would like to see a formal peer review process in a wiki, knowing we are looking at it could be the key to recruiting them. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there is a difference between saying that "We have a real names policy" and "We only allow real names." I agree we should leave some room for issues that might, for some unforeseen reason, become necessary. I also have no problem with the editorial council deciding those limitations for pseudonyms, but the number of people who would know who that pseudonym is should be minimized - perhaps the EIC can be the only one that knows with the constabulary as oversight. D. Matt Innis 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Well, let's not drift on this point. A journal review process does not use pseudonyms, but strictly restricts knowledge of real names and uses anonymity in interactions. Let's discuss pseudonyms under pseudonyms and anonymity/controlled knowledge under this heading. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A journal review process does not use pseudonymity--it uses anonymity. Howard, I think you're confusing an editorial board with the peer review process.  In the external peer review process, the names of the reviewers are never known to the public or the authors.  Sometimes, I imagine, a member of the editorial board may do a peer review but we'd never know, would we?  If CZ is going to request external review, it should be with the caveat that the names of the reviewers not be used.  Thus there is no problem here with the real names policy.  (Also, I'm not yet sold on this external review idea)  Jones 01:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know journal review doesn't use pseudonymity. I've been both a reviewer and been reviewed. With some journals, the editors gave reviewers the option, once an article had been approved, to interact with constructive suggestions to the author.


 * Most of the journals I know do publish an annual list of all reviewers; what stays confidential is the assignment of editors to specific articles.


 * I'm not suggesting we decide on external review; I simply want the Charter not to preclude it. The controlled anonymity of review is a quite different matter than pseudonymity. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with that (no exclusion). Jones 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

=Structure=
 * 1) This section should only contain headings and subheadings.
 * 2) Add headings, reorder them, move them to other places in the hierarchy, but do not delete them right away.
 * 3) Text shall be filled in by a different mechanism once we have agreed on this structure, and draft phrasings for each of these headings can be linked from here.
 * 4) In preview mode, this section has its own TOC to provide an easy overview.
 * 5) For discussion of this structure, please use this dedicated Forum thread.

Sections that have been put up here but should not go into the final document
Please sign your vote for deletion.

This sample section, for instance
--Daniel Mietchen 15:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)