NOTICE: Citizendium is still being set up on its newer server, treat as a beta for now; please see here for more.
Citizendium - a community developing a quality comprehensive compendium of knowledge, online and free. Click here to join and contribute—free
CZ thanks our previous donors. Donate here. Treasurer's Financial Report -- Thanks to our content contributors. --

CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Peter Schmitt

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search

The main objective of the charter is to clearly define the fundamental principles on which CZ is based and which are considered as essential features and therefore may not be changed.

Of course, the main structures and processes have also to be installed and defined, however, they should only have the form of (firm) guidelines and avoid the inclusion of detailed procedures because their implementation (which are to be judged against the basic principles of the charter) will have to be adaptable according to future developments and experiences.
Among the topics for which such guidelines are needed are, of course:
Editors/experts, authors, readers/users, approval,
and how decisions are made and enforced (constables).

When drafting the charter the experiences since the start of CZ will have to be compared to and combined with the fresh observations obtained by those who have joined only recently.
(Changes to the originally formulated "preliminary charter" must not be taboo, but should be carefully reasoned.)

Some issues will be inherently difficult to deal with, among them the "neutrality" question, and solving the conflict between cooperation and the fact that expert knowledge cannot be decided by majority. Another controversial issue are articles on "fringe" topics. Being rather an inclusionist, I think that they should be included: If one likes them or hates them, the topics exist and often influence even a large number of people, and thus have to be presented in an adequate way (even if this is difficult).
Nominees who have accepted
Nominee Link to position statement
Raymond Arritt statement
Robert Badgett statement
Martin Baldwin-Edwards statement
Howard C. Berkowitz statement
Stephen Ewen statement
Shamira Gelbman statement
D. Matt Innis statement
Meg Ireland statement
Russell D. Jones statement
Brian P. Long statement
Daniel Mietchen statement
Tom Morris statement
Joe Quick statement
Supten Sarbadhikari statement
Peter Schmitt statement
Anthony Sebastian statement
Drew R. Smith statement
Ro Thorpe statement
David E. Volk statement
Alexander Wiebel statement