User:Daniel Mietchen/PR-2010-013

As mentioned on the forums, I think the current phrasing of the motion PR-2010-013 of the Editorial Council is problematic. Since those who voted for the motion did not address my concerns, the best way to address these issues seems to be to submit an alternatively phrased motion and to see what support it can get in a formal vote of the council.
Feel free to edit this page, but please leave the "Original phrasing" section as it is.

Importation of articles

Original phrasing

The importation of articles copied from other sources, in particular from other Internet encylopedias such as Wikipedia, is not allowed.

The only exceptions to this general rule are

• articles written originally almost entirely by the Citizen who imports them and who, in addition, is also an active contributor, and
• specific articles that are explicitly accepted by the Editorial Council.

Remark:
Of course, any available source—including Wikipedia—may be used in a professional manner to find information and inspiration.

Revised phrasing (1)

Articles originating from other sources are not allowed to be imported into Citizendium's main namespace without having been adapted to Citizendium's formatting and style, taking copyright and article quality into consideration.

Remark:
Existing External Articles that do not fit Citizendium's formatting and style by February 28, 2011, shall be deleted. Those that do fit them shall be reclassified according to the Article status scheme. Following that, the status External Article shall be deprecated.

Revised phrasing (2)

High-quality articles originating from suitably licensed sources can be imported into Citizendium. Placement in the main namespace requires that the formatting and style have been adapted to Citizendium's standards.

Remark 1:
Existing External Articles that do not fit Citizendium's formatting and style by February 28, 2011, shall be deleted. Those that do fit them shall be reclassified according to the Article status scheme. Following that, the status External Article shall be deprecated.

Remark 2:
As per existing policy, Editors always have the right to request deletion of low-quality content, and Constables have the right to delete entries that do not fit otherwise.

Can we not do now what the revised phrasing would allow?

For example, does it qualify as an 'import' if I take a PLoS article into my word processor, put it into CZ format/style, add content as new information or as elaborations of the content already there, perhaps rearrange the narrative sequence, eliminate some of the original content, add new references, add editorial comments, perhaps add new images, create a related articles section and a bibliography section — then added it to CZ as a new article?

I would not consider it an import, even if most of the original sentences were retained.

Anthony.Sebastian 16:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The implementation of an idea of an "article", other than Wikipedia, is a good question. To develop our Internet protocols area, for example, one approach may be starting with peer-reviewed, stable, public domain specifications of the Internet Engineering Task Force. The specifications are absolutely not in encyclopedic form, although some are more user-friendly than others. I would not dream of using the more complex specifications as a whole, but, in a CZ article, I might link. Nevertheless, when writing Routing Information Protocol, for example, I see little reason to rewrite well-written parts, but instead supplement with graphics and explanations. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)