Template:CharterVote2/4/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Clause 2 needs a qualifier. If editors are empowered to "assure" the site's "reliability" and "quality" at all times, then editors are empowered to swoop down on any unsuspecting writer at any time and badger them about "inaccurate" and "unreliable" content. Writing is a process of figuring out knowledge, working out what's right and what's not. Let the authors author. Editors should be responsible for the reliability and quality of only the APPROVED CONTENT. If it's not approved by our experts, then it's just as good as WP. I propose the following: Jones 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

• I'll agree to that. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest "quality-reviewed content", or some equivalent. We have, I think, Developing and Developed for good reason. If Editors only become involved in Approval, we limit too much. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Expert's are also expected to guide content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -Joe Quick 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Make your suggestion and I'll vote. D. Matt Innis 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What about

2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

3. in guiding content development towards approval and reapproval.

or simply

2. in guiding content development towards reliability and quality.

instead of the two above?

--Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is overlap with article 7. --Daniel Mietchen 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) #2 alone deals nicely with avoiding making Approved the only place where there can be oversight. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If Article 7 retains a point about approval and high quality, we can drop it from here. I think the two articles should be kept separate, because "expert" and "editor" mean slightly different things, "editor" being an official position given to experts. Thus, we can distinguish between things that experts do simply as experts and things that editors do as a result of their official powers. Assuring high quality in approved articles is an editor job. So, for this article, I think Daniel and Howard are right:

• The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play
  • in defining content standards in their relevant fields and
  • in guiding content development towards reliability and quality.

-Joe Quick 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Okay Agreed. D. Matt Innis 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting distinction between expert and editor, but do you think it is obvious to others?
• This is functionally meaningless. So I'm an expert but not an editor. How, exactly, will I "Define content standards" or "guide content development" in the face of a prejudiced editor? Is this intended to mean just that "experts are free to write at CZ?" Are the botanists going to rebel against the biologists? What if the biology editors (who happen [e.g.] to be all mamologists) define botany in ways that botanists' find offensive? Or is this just intended to be a statement that CZ appreciates experts? (If so, can't it go in the preamble?) I'm voting in favor of it, but with the recognition that this article does not grant any citizen special rights, status, or powers. Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated. Suppose the EC adopts a rule that content disputes should be resolved in favor of the author who has the greatest number of edits. And in a particular dispute on the Ann Arbor Railroad for instance, say Howard and I (who, for the sake of this example, are not editors) get into a dispute over some fact. The dispute would be resolved in favor of Howard who has the greater number of edits instead of me who has the more expert knowledge about the AARR [I'm making an educated guess here, Howard]. If banning that sort of EC behavior is intended here, this article needs to be A LOT clearer. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It really should be in the preamble. D. Matt Innis 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting into detailed EC procedure; "Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated." is more at the Charter level.

Further, take Russell's example. I am totally untrained in the Ann Arbor Railroad, but I am an Engineering Editor, the workgroup that has been getting transportation topics. While I do know a good deal about aviation and marine transport, I really know very little about trains. If I ruled against Russell and I were the only Engineering editor, what would be his appeal? For that matter, if there were additional Editors, where do they come in? What is the role of the ME here? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Railroads," Howard, not "Trains." :) Russell D. Jones 20:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

"Railroads," Howard, not "Trains." :) Doesn't allow puns on training. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I envision, let the editors fight it out (and include other experts as well) as long as they remain professional. They may ask the OMB to help decide on a compromise. If they reach an impasse, they should ask the ME to intervene and make a decision. The MEs decision goes into the article. If someone is not satisfied, the OMB can instruct them how to bring it to the EC (which should have a dispute resolution system in place that can call in as many experts as they like - the information collected should be as complete as possible). The EC announces it's decision and that is what goes into the article. If someone (it may be the other party) disagrees with the decision, they appeal on the grounds that something new came up or there was a technical error. The Appeal board either agrees or disagree and sends them back or the decision is final. eventually, there will be nothing to appeal. Also, if five years later, it turns out that the railroad was made of glass, then it can be appealed (if necessary). D. Matt Innis 17:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

To help me understand your position, let me take this a step further. The choo-choo expert author decides the group of Editors, none of whom are especially knowledgeable about trains, is deliberately obstructing him. Correct me if I'm wrong, or it's not in the charter, but I understand the default position is that editor(s) rulings can keep something out of an article.

The Editors are perfectly courteous but the Author isn't getting what he wants. Since the ME role was justified on quick decisions, I'm not sure the ME has a role here, since broad policy is unquestionably involved and it's going to wind up in the EC -- if the ME ruled for the Author, I think it would be safe to assume the Editors would bring in the EC. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, not. Editors obstructing an Author in such a way needs to be prohibited. (Let the authors author.) So, how do we protect the expertise of the author? Is that what this clause is getting at? Russell D. Jones 20:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In this example, I see it going to the EC, which has both non-Editor and Editor citizens. The ME, remember, must be an Editor.

While I hope such events are very rare, however, the integrity of the Editor mechanism must remain or we become WP. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above scenerio. I think our system (including any example where the ME makes a content decision that is in favor of the expert author or the generalist editor or any form of compromise solution) will allow the good content to prevail regardless because that ME decision is expected to be the temporary solution while the EC gets to hear the details in a dispute resolution process (if necessary). D. Matt Innis 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Summary: Four committee members (Berkowitz, Innis, Jones, and Quick) so far have agreed to this formulation: Russell D. Jones 01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play in defining content standards in their relevant fields and in guiding content development towards reliability and quality.

This still seems like something for the EC interim guidance. But, I am still listening. D. Matt Innis 14:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with "The Citizendium community shall recognize the special role that experts play in defining content standards in their relevant fields and in guiding content development towards reliability and quality." and think it should be in the Charter rather than interim guidance. --Daniel Mietchen 15:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Would you go with Preamble? D. Matt Innis 15:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if need be, but my preference would be to have it right here. --Daniel Mietchen 23:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let's see what everyone else thinks and I'll go with the flow on this one. D. Matt Innis 01:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I can support preamble in terms of importance as a fundamental characteristic of CZ, but remember that a preamble is not part of the normative document. I think it goes here but I'd accept preamble. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comment in art. 2 on the need for a preamble if it is not (or not clearly) "part of the normative document". --Daniel Mietchen 10:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) I'm willing to leave it here if that is what Daniel needs. D. Matt Innis 12:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to leave it here. -Joe Quick 15:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)