CZ:The Editor Role: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>John Stephenson
(Article 7)
(43 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Editor Policy}}
Article 7 of the current [[CZ:Policies|Policies document]] states:
 
''While all article contributors shall be otherwise equal, there shall be special recognition for subject experts (who shall be individuals with any of: accredited research-level qualifications; three or more peer-reviewed publications; or equivalent practical experience as defined by existing expert contributors), who shall have the final say in any dispute over content, and shall have the right to close a version of a reasonably high quality article to further editing. ''
 
The above is the only binding rule on recognized expertise. The rules below serve as guidance only.
 
{{TOC|right}}
----
 
The text below is now out of date (as of 2020).  A better summary is probably to be had [[CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians#Why Citizendium?|here]].  We no longer are following the "expert guidance" model discussed below.  I am putting this notice here until we get a chance to revise this entire page.[[User:Pat Palmer|Pat Palmer]] ([[User talk:Pat Palmer|talk]]) 20:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 
----
----
 
While an 'editor' on other projects may simply be someone who writes or edits pages, a Citizendium 'Editor' is a recognized expert who may be able to exercise some additional authority over the development of articles within their field.
{{TOC|right}}
 
From the [[CZ:Charter|Charter]]:
 
'''Article 4:''' 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.
 
'''Article 14:''' Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community.  Official recognition of expertise — obtained through education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council.
 
'''Article 15:''' Editors shall assure the quality of the Citizendium's approved content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right to
#approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately;
#resolve disputes over specific content matters when requested;
#enforce style and content guidelines as established by the Citizendium Council; and
#identify for discussion incorrect or poorly presented content.
 
'''Article 16:''' Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Citizendium Council and may be appealed.
 
'''Article 22:''' Articles formally judged to be of high quality by editors shall be designated "approved", protected and kept permanently available.
 
 
== Not your usual 'editorship' ==
This is a wiki; it is run almost exclusively by volunteers: articles aren't signed, and everyone works side-by-side.  Most importantly, everyone may improve any article at will: there is no central authority assigning work. 
 
Considering this, editorship in the ''Citizendium'' differs greatly from traditional editorship.  You neither assign work, nor is work assigned to you.  Your role is one of gentle oversight--village elders wandering the bazaar.  (See Eric Raymond's "<span class=plainlinks>[http://catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ The Cathedral and the Bazaar]</span>.")


== What Editors do ==
Editors are responsible for ''Citizendium'' content, not participant management (which [[CZ:Constabulary|constables]] handle).  Editors, essentially, guide the crafting of articles and they approve articles.  Editors may also be involved in governance, if they wish.  Editors are also [[CZ:The_Author_Role|authors]], so many write articles both inside and outside their area(s) of expertise. 


'''Under constructionFor now, please see [[CZ:Editor Policy|Editor Policy]].
=== Guiding articles ===
Editors are expected to ensure that articles are accurate, objective, representative of different (important) views, balanced in representing those views, and sufficiently comprehensive as to be valuable encyclopedia articlesAn editor who is a specialist on a given topic may thus make certain decisions about, and plan the articles on, that topic. Editors might, for example, list an article plan and guidance on issues at the top of an article's [[CZ:Talk Pages|talk page]], and should be willing to discuss questions on the Talk page.  The best way to keep authors enthusiastic is to explain any editorial decisions clearly and politely, to be (reasonably) responsive to questions, and to be encouraging and constructive in advice and guidance.  


We'll keep this brief but helpful--which is difficult, because creating an encyclopedia is complicated.  But explore the links provided to get more in-depth information.
Obviously, editors must share this responsibility with other editors; but if there is anyone who is a genuine specialist on the topic, then, within reason, the other editors defer to that editor on issues relevant to that particular expertise.  Authors, too, defer to editors responsible for an article to which they contribute on such issues.  But this does not mean that the editor may flout ''Citizendium'' guidelines with impunity, or that we support "local dictatorship"; we don't. Any author who feels that an editor is acting unreasonably (and any editor who believes that an author is being unreasonable) may refer the dispute to the Citizendium processes of [[CZ:Dispute Resolution|dispute resolution]].


== About your role as a ''Citizendium'' editor ==
An editor should exert "authority" rarely. If an editor is also acting as an author on a particular article, then he or she should take care to exert authority only on issues where his or her professional expertise is clearly relevant. Many issues about articles are not relevant to an editor's specialist expertise. Some (e.g. citation styles, naming conventions etc.) may be determined by the workgroup policy. Others (including issues of presentation, writing style, level, and tone) should be settled if possible by discussion between the collaborating authors and editors as equals.


I guess the thing I am most unclear about at this point is the steps in the approval process of completed articles, who is expected to initiate what, who must sign off on an article before it is approved, and what the role of editors in that process is.
=== Approving articles ===
Editors can also ''approve'' articles as '[[CZ:Citable Version|citable]]'.  Approval involves identifying a particular version of the article from the page history--often, the most recent one--and nominating that version for approval on a certain date.  As editor, you can do this single-handedly for articles in your workgroup(s), ''if'' you have not made any significant contribution to the article yourself.  If you ''have'' contributed, then the article can only be approved either by a group of three editors including yourself, or else by another (uninvolved) editor.  For instructions, see [[CZ:Approval Process|Approval Process]].  Your first time through, ''do'' ask for help--there are many people eager to help new editors with new approvals.


This is a wiki, first of all.
==Subject workgroups==
Editors may participate in subject [[CZ:Workgroups|workgroups]] which, when active, provide a forum to discuss and organize articles in their care. All Editors are members of at least one workgroup. The [[CZ:Council|Citizendium Council]] is broadly responsible for content policy.


- they are mainly authors and should work on articles
== How to become an Editor ==
- they are not better authors than others
- they shall be active in the forums and on the CZ to show that they are 
active
- they should have read the "rules" and "guides"


1. How do I get other authors/editors interested in contributing to a topic that I have started but will require further help for taking to the "Approved" article standard? 2. Often identifying other authors/editors from the relevant Workgroups, and inviting through  their User Talk pages cannot generate sufficient interest. 3. How to ensure that the [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Requested_Articles] be initiated by someone (except the requester)?
Authors wishing to apply for Editorships should approach either an [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|Editorial Personnel Administrator]] or the [[CZ:Council|Citizendium Council]]. Also consider approaching the [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]] directly. You may be required to give details of your level of expertise, such as publication records, a résumé or institutional weblinks.


1) How does being an editor differ from being an author?
== Get started as an Editor==
Your general task as editor is to help improve ''Citizendium'' articles.  You might contribute in any of the following ways:


;Respond to workgroup review requests.
:Anyone can request that workgroup editors review an article by posting to the [[CZ:Mailing_lists#Workgroups|workgroup mailing list]].  Review requests are not assigned to any particular editor; instead, anyone who is available goes to the page and offers his or her changes and comments.  Similarly, authors (and other editors) may announce that they are trying to push an article toward approval.  Please respond to such announcements!


2) When does one's role as an editor 'kick in' in order to help the smooth functioning of CZ? ie, when does one 'switch' from fellow-author mode to editor mode and how does one best handle that? (may be no single answer of course).
;Look through articles in your area.
:Look on [[CZ:Workgroups|Workgroups]].  Find your workgroup and then, to the right of the workgroup name, click "All articles."  That will give you an idea of how many articles and of what sort we have in your area.  Please help improve any of those articles.


;Hunt for approvable articles in your area.
:Look again on [[CZ:Workgroups|Workgroups]].  Find your workgroup and click "Workgroup Home."  On the page that appears, notice, near the top, the links titled "Checklist-generated categories."  Click on the first link after that, "Developed."  This will give you a list of all the articles that someone--rightly or wrongly--has picked out as "developed."  That's beyond the "stub" and "developing" stages.  Those are articles that ''should'' be close to approval.  (If not, then the "status" should not be "1"--simply tell someone on a [[CZ:Talk Pages|talk page]], if you don't know what this means.)


3) What is an editor to do (practical tips especially welcome - perhaps me and my fellow editors are best placed to add to that too from our own personal practical experience over time) to ensure conflicts are minimised so that otherwise valuable contributors understand why a content decision might not have 'gone their way' yet still remain supportive contributors to the CZ project?
;Monitor recent changes in your area.
:Again, look on [[CZ:Workgroups|Workgroups]].  Find your workgroup and then, under the rightmost column, click "Recent changes."  That should give you an idea of what--if anything--has been happening in your area.  But if you're in an area that hasn't had so much activity, don't give up.  We're a new project; and other people will join and help you if you take the initiative.


;Monitor project-wide recent changes.
:From any page at all, look to the left, under "project pages," for the "Recent changes" link.  Click that and explore the links you see.  That will give you an idea of what has been going on on the wiki lately.  Note that you can opt to view up to 500 changes at a time.  This can be great fun: you can help others out and talk about what you're doing, either on the article's [[CZ:Talk Pages|talk page]] or on the person's "user talk" page.  (Go to the person's user page and then hit the "discussion" tab.)


4) In practical terms, how is an editor expected to operate? For example, in my case, I intend to keep a look on issues related to gay marketing related topics so how might I best know that I am tracking articles relevant to my role.
;Drum up support.
:In some cases, we don't have enough active editors.  Please do feel free invite your colleagues to participate.
;Write!
:Our most active editors also write articles, and we need your leadership here.  In writing, you act as an author.  If you must make a decision, you should declare--gently--that you are acting in your capacity as an editor.  For guidelines on good articles, see [[CZ:Approval Standards|Approval Standards]] and [[CZ:Article Mechanics|Article Mechanics]].


== How actually to get involved ==
== Have fun! ==
[[CZ:Why Citizendium?|Why Citizendium?]]  Creating a "Citizens' Compendium" can actually be a lot of fun and rewarding--not to mention very helpful for a global audience.  We're doing something that could both greatly improve information online and serve as an example of a better sort of wiki project.


[sign up for mailing list - respond to help requests]
'''For more details about the editor role, see [[CZ:Editor Policy|Editor Policy]].  For a list of our current editors, see [[:Category:CZ Editors|CZ Editors]].'''


[review recent changes in your area]
{{Editor Policy}}

Revision as of 13:22, 16 February 2021

Article 7 of the current Policies document states:

While all article contributors shall be otherwise equal, there shall be special recognition for subject experts (who shall be individuals with any of: accredited research-level qualifications; three or more peer-reviewed publications; or equivalent practical experience as defined by existing expert contributors), who shall have the final say in any dispute over content, and shall have the right to close a version of a reasonably high quality article to further editing.

The above is the only binding rule on recognized expertise. The rules below serve as guidance only.


The text below is now out of date (as of 2020). A better summary is probably to be had here. We no longer are following the "expert guidance" model discussed below. I am putting this notice here until we get a chance to revise this entire page.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)



While an 'editor' on other projects may simply be someone who writes or edits pages, a Citizendium 'Editor' is a recognized expert who may be able to exercise some additional authority over the development of articles within their field.

From the Charter:

Article 4: 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.

Article 14: Editors are Citizens whose expertise in some field of knowledge is recognized and formally acknowledged by the community. Official recognition of expertise — obtained through education or experience — and its scope shall be based on guidelines established by the Editorial Council.

Article 15: Editors shall assure the quality of the Citizendium's approved content. They shall review and evaluate articles and shall have the right to

  1. approve high-quality articles that treat their topic adequately;
  2. resolve disputes over specific content matters when requested;
  3. enforce style and content guidelines as established by the Citizendium Council; and
  4. identify for discussion incorrect or poorly presented content.

Article 16: Any change in Editor status shall require a formal decision by the Citizendium Council and may be appealed.

Article 22: Articles formally judged to be of high quality by editors shall be designated "approved", protected and kept permanently available.


Not your usual 'editorship'

This is a wiki; it is run almost exclusively by volunteers: articles aren't signed, and everyone works side-by-side. Most importantly, everyone may improve any article at will: there is no central authority assigning work.

Considering this, editorship in the Citizendium differs greatly from traditional editorship. You neither assign work, nor is work assigned to you. Your role is one of gentle oversight--village elders wandering the bazaar. (See Eric Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar.")

What Editors do

Editors are responsible for Citizendium content, not participant management (which constables handle). Editors, essentially, guide the crafting of articles and they approve articles. Editors may also be involved in governance, if they wish. Editors are also authors, so many write articles both inside and outside their area(s) of expertise.

Guiding articles

Editors are expected to ensure that articles are accurate, objective, representative of different (important) views, balanced in representing those views, and sufficiently comprehensive as to be valuable encyclopedia articles. An editor who is a specialist on a given topic may thus make certain decisions about, and plan the articles on, that topic. Editors might, for example, list an article plan and guidance on issues at the top of an article's talk page, and should be willing to discuss questions on the Talk page. The best way to keep authors enthusiastic is to explain any editorial decisions clearly and politely, to be (reasonably) responsive to questions, and to be encouraging and constructive in advice and guidance.

Obviously, editors must share this responsibility with other editors; but if there is anyone who is a genuine specialist on the topic, then, within reason, the other editors defer to that editor on issues relevant to that particular expertise. Authors, too, defer to editors responsible for an article to which they contribute on such issues. But this does not mean that the editor may flout Citizendium guidelines with impunity, or that we support "local dictatorship"; we don't. Any author who feels that an editor is acting unreasonably (and any editor who believes that an author is being unreasonable) may refer the dispute to the Citizendium processes of dispute resolution.

An editor should exert "authority" rarely. If an editor is also acting as an author on a particular article, then he or she should take care to exert authority only on issues where his or her professional expertise is clearly relevant. Many issues about articles are not relevant to an editor's specialist expertise. Some (e.g. citation styles, naming conventions etc.) may be determined by the workgroup policy. Others (including issues of presentation, writing style, level, and tone) should be settled if possible by discussion between the collaborating authors and editors as equals.

Approving articles

Editors can also approve articles as 'citable'. Approval involves identifying a particular version of the article from the page history--often, the most recent one--and nominating that version for approval on a certain date. As editor, you can do this single-handedly for articles in your workgroup(s), if you have not made any significant contribution to the article yourself. If you have contributed, then the article can only be approved either by a group of three editors including yourself, or else by another (uninvolved) editor. For instructions, see Approval Process. Your first time through, do ask for help--there are many people eager to help new editors with new approvals.

Subject workgroups

Editors may participate in subject workgroups which, when active, provide a forum to discuss and organize articles in their care. All Editors are members of at least one workgroup. The Citizendium Council is broadly responsible for content policy.

How to become an Editor

Authors wishing to apply for Editorships should approach either an Editorial Personnel Administrator or the Citizendium Council. Also consider approaching the Managing Editor directly. You may be required to give details of your level of expertise, such as publication records, a résumé or institutional weblinks.

Get started as an Editor

Your general task as editor is to help improve Citizendium articles. You might contribute in any of the following ways:

Respond to workgroup review requests.
Anyone can request that workgroup editors review an article by posting to the workgroup mailing list. Review requests are not assigned to any particular editor; instead, anyone who is available goes to the page and offers his or her changes and comments. Similarly, authors (and other editors) may announce that they are trying to push an article toward approval. Please respond to such announcements!
Look through articles in your area.
Look on Workgroups. Find your workgroup and then, to the right of the workgroup name, click "All articles." That will give you an idea of how many articles and of what sort we have in your area. Please help improve any of those articles.
Hunt for approvable articles in your area.
Look again on Workgroups. Find your workgroup and click "Workgroup Home." On the page that appears, notice, near the top, the links titled "Checklist-generated categories." Click on the first link after that, "Developed." This will give you a list of all the articles that someone--rightly or wrongly--has picked out as "developed." That's beyond the "stub" and "developing" stages. Those are articles that should be close to approval. (If not, then the "status" should not be "1"--simply tell someone on a talk page, if you don't know what this means.)
Monitor recent changes in your area.
Again, look on Workgroups. Find your workgroup and then, under the rightmost column, click "Recent changes." That should give you an idea of what--if anything--has been happening in your area. But if you're in an area that hasn't had so much activity, don't give up. We're a new project; and other people will join and help you if you take the initiative.
Monitor project-wide recent changes.
From any page at all, look to the left, under "project pages," for the "Recent changes" link. Click that and explore the links you see. That will give you an idea of what has been going on on the wiki lately. Note that you can opt to view up to 500 changes at a time. This can be great fun: you can help others out and talk about what you're doing, either on the article's talk page or on the person's "user talk" page. (Go to the person's user page and then hit the "discussion" tab.)
Drum up support.
In some cases, we don't have enough active editors. Please do feel free invite your colleagues to participate.
Write!
Our most active editors also write articles, and we need your leadership here. In writing, you act as an author. If you must make a decision, you should declare--gently--that you are acting in your capacity as an editor. For guidelines on good articles, see Approval Standards and Article Mechanics.

Have fun!

Why Citizendium? Creating a "Citizens' Compendium" can actually be a lot of fun and rewarding--not to mention very helpful for a global audience. We're doing something that could both greatly improve information online and serve as an example of a better sort of wiki project.

For more details about the editor role, see Editor Policy. For a list of our current editors, see CZ Editors.


Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy
See also: Citizendium Council | Content Policy | Help for Editors
How to Edit
Getting Started Organization Technical Help
Policies Content Policy
Welcome Page