CZ:Approval Standards: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>John Stephenson
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Approval standards'''  ''Draft for discussion''
The standards of a good ''Citizendium'' article are complex, and only summarized here:


''This needs to be updated and kept consistent with the [[CZ:Policy_Outline#Article_Standards|Policy Outline]].''
*'''Encyclopedic.'''  Articles must resemble encyclopedia articles.  This means that there are many things that they are not, such as dictionary definitions or personal essays.  Some other ancillary, helpful reference material, in the form of tables and lists, are also permissible.  See [[CZ:What Citizendium articles are not|what Citizendium articles are not]].
*'''Accurate.'''  Articles are to be held up to a high standard of accuracy.  Editors should review every substantive claim made by an article, and be of the opinion that the claim is well justified by the relevant evidence, before approving the article.
*'''Neutral.'''  Articles must not take a stand on controversial issues.  They should report on controversies rather than engaging in them, reporting every side fairly and objectively.  See [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|the neutrality policy]].
*'''Coherent.'''  Articles must be coherent or unified, that is, integrated by a single style and plan, or "narrative flow." An incoherent article appears written by different people or at different times, or with different conceptions about the article's proper structure and style. Typically, an incoherent article repeats information pointlessly and leaves out crucial information where an expert would expect to find it.
*'''Comprehensive.'''  Articles should cover all or most significant aspects of a topic, perhaps except those aspects that are included in articles about related topics.
*'''Well-written.'''  Articles must not contain grammatical, spelling, usage, or other errors of poor writing.  See [[CZ:Article Mechanics|article mechanics]].
*'''University-level.'''  Millions of topics can be treated at a level accessible to the average university student, or approximately the level of ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or ''The New York Times.''  Certain topics cannot be treated except for specialists, and thus may be more advanced in presentation.  In the future, the Citizendium Foundation may start separate projects for a children's encyclopedia, as well as an encyclopedia aimed specifically for specialists.
*'''Not original research.'''  While articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. 
*'''Legal and responsible.'''  Articles must not contain copyright violations, libellous statements, or grossly obscene information or images.  Persons found to have added such material to articles can be permanently banned from the project.  In particular, biographies of living persons must be handled a special way.  See [[CZ:Copyright Violation Policy|copyright violation policy]], [[CZ:Libel Policy|libel policy]], as well as [[CZ:Biographies of Living Persons|biographies of living persons]].


An editor may approve a new CZ article if he or she feels able to declare that the article
{{Content Policy}}
 
[[Category:Policies]]
:a) Is not in contravention of any CZ policy
 
:b) Has significant content, and is appropriately referenced
 
:c) Is written clearly and fluently
 
:d) Contains no errors of fact
 
:e) Is 'balanced' and fair where there the article covers areas of significant dispute
 
 
Approval should not be denied on the grounds that the article has omissions, unless these undermine the overall balance and accuracy of the article.
 
Approval is an ongoing process; even if an editor believes that the article has some significant shortcomings, then the article may still be approved, but the editor should declare any criticisms or reservations at the top of the article Talk page to direct further improvements to the article.
 
When considering appoval of a new version of an article for which a previously approved version exists, the editor should contact any editors involved previously in the approval process to invite their comments on the new version. Approval should address the question
 
''"Is the new version a significant improvement on the existing approved version?"''
 
If the answer is that the improvements are relatively minor, or essentially a matter of opinion, then approval should normally be deferred until there is clear enhancement of content. An exception is when the only changes to the approved version are minor corrections, approval of these need not be deferred.
 
 
====Article Standards====
The standards of a '''good''' ''Citizendium'' article are complex:
 
*'''Accurate.'''  Articles should have a high standard of accuracy. Editors should review every substantive claim made, and be of the opinion that the claim is well justified, before approving the article.
 
This does ''not'' imply that every fact needs a reference; indeed over-referencing articles, can make them unwieldy. References should be selected with care; ideally they should be from authoritative sources and should be verifiable online. References should be given to direct the reader to ''particularly notable'' sources of fact or opinion, or to facts the truth of which might reasonably be questioned.
 
*'''Encyclopedic.'''  Articles must resemble encyclopedia articles. This means that there are many things that they are not, such as dictionary definitions or personal essays. Some other ancillary, helpful reference material, in the form of tables and lists, are also permissible.
 
Encyclopedic does ''not'' mean exhaustive. Any article is inevitably a selection of facts or views, and omissions are inevitable
 
*'''Neutral.'''  Articles must not take a stand on controversial issues. They should report on controversies rather than engaging in them, reporting every side as sympathetically as possible consistent with the sympathetic representation of competing sides, and doling out limited space, where necessary, according to (in the case of mainly academic controversies) the proportion of opinion among experts or, in some broader controversies, the general public whose native language is the language of the compendium.  See [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|the neutrality policy]].
 
The purpose of a CZ artile is to allow the reader to make up his or her own mind on any controversial topic, not to 'lead' the reader to a particular conclusion. The reader might be reasonably led by the weight or quality of evidence, but should not be led by rhetorical devices or by selective presentation of evidence. An article that is tranparently seeking to be balanced and fair is more likely to be given credibility than article which appears to be designed to promote a particular position.
 
*'''University-level.'''  Many topics can be treated at a level accessible to the average university student, or approximately the level of ''Encyclopedia Britannica'' or ''The New York Times.''  Some topics cannot be treated except for specialists, and thus may be more advanced in presentation. In the future, the ''Citizendium'' Foundation may start separate projects for a children's encyclopedia, as well as an encyclopedia specifically for specialists.
 
At all times however, authors should strive to present articles as clearly as possible, preferring simple natural language to technical terms where this involves no loss of meaning.
 
*'''Not original research.'''  Articles should be aimed to be excellent encyclopedia articles, and thus are summations of what is known about a topic. Hence, while articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing. In other words, they should not contain original research or observations. See [[CZ:Original Research Policy|the original research policy]].
 
*'''Family-friendly.'''  Articles should be appropriate for children. While the ''Citizendium'' may, in the future, provide a means whereby "adult" fare can be included, it will be deleting large numbers articles on arguably obscene topics that may be found in Wikipedia. See [[CZ:Family-Friendly Policy|policy regarding family-friendly content]].
 
*'''Legal and responsible.'''  Articles must not contain copyright violations, libellous statements, or grossly obscene information or images.  Persons found to have added such material to articles can be permanently banned from the project. In particular, biographies of living persons must be handled a special way. See [[CZ:Copyright Violation Policy|copyright violation policy]], [[CZ:Libel Policy|libel policy]], as well as [[CZ:Biographies of Living Persons|biographies of living persons]].
For complete article standards, see the documents linked above.

Revision as of 17:59, 26 February 2021

The standards of a good Citizendium article are complex, and only summarized here:

  • Encyclopedic. Articles must resemble encyclopedia articles. This means that there are many things that they are not, such as dictionary definitions or personal essays. Some other ancillary, helpful reference material, in the form of tables and lists, are also permissible. See what Citizendium articles are not.
  • Accurate. Articles are to be held up to a high standard of accuracy. Editors should review every substantive claim made by an article, and be of the opinion that the claim is well justified by the relevant evidence, before approving the article.
  • Neutral. Articles must not take a stand on controversial issues. They should report on controversies rather than engaging in them, reporting every side fairly and objectively. See the neutrality policy.
  • Coherent. Articles must be coherent or unified, that is, integrated by a single style and plan, or "narrative flow." An incoherent article appears written by different people or at different times, or with different conceptions about the article's proper structure and style. Typically, an incoherent article repeats information pointlessly and leaves out crucial information where an expert would expect to find it.
  • Comprehensive. Articles should cover all or most significant aspects of a topic, perhaps except those aspects that are included in articles about related topics.
  • Well-written. Articles must not contain grammatical, spelling, usage, or other errors of poor writing. See article mechanics.
  • University-level. Millions of topics can be treated at a level accessible to the average university student, or approximately the level of Encyclopedia Britannica or The New York Times. Certain topics cannot be treated except for specialists, and thus may be more advanced in presentation. In the future, the Citizendium Foundation may start separate projects for a children's encyclopedia, as well as an encyclopedia aimed specifically for specialists.
  • Not original research. While articles may sum up their topics in novel ways, they should not do so in ways that imply new theories or analyses that in academic contexts would require peer review for publishing.
  • Legal and responsible. Articles must not contain copyright violations, libellous statements, or grossly obscene information or images. Persons found to have added such material to articles can be permanently banned from the project. In particular, biographies of living persons must be handled a special way. See copyright violation policy, libel policy, as well as biographies of living persons.


Citizendium Content Policy
Approval Standards | Article Mechanics | Subpages | Importing material from other sources | Citable articles
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
Welcome Page
Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Approval_Standards&oldid=10595"