User talk:ElectionJune2014/Referenda/5

Not thought through

I'd like to see the discussion of this proposal because this proposal cuts to the core of what makes CZ different. If this proposal has been hashed out among the citizenry, I'd like to read it so that I understand the rationale behind it. But I can't support this on the face of it -- it overturns a fundamental premise of CZ. Russell D. Jones 00:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. A number of changes recently have been weakening Editor authority, which is basically our USP (I don't think real names sufficient for that.) Peter Jackson 09:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I suppose as a compromise the ME might be given a veto over content decisions, Editor qualifications &c. Peter Jackson 09:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Peter, just how is it a unique selling point when people are clearly not buying it? Active editor and author numbers have been declining. Gentlemen, let's be realistic here. Unless there are fundamental changes in the way Citizendium is organized, this project is well and truly doomed and that would be helping no-one. Meg Ireland 14:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that the Editor seats do the project no favours not just because it makes them more difficult to fill and because half the duties aren't content-related anyway but because it encourages centralisation of content decisions. We used to allow Editors to exercise decisions via the workgroups, but now we have a more elaborate process in which the Council organises approvals, sidelining non-members with actual expertise. John Stephenson 15:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree John. The role of the editor should always be respected and never eroded, however the problem has always been the numbers - filling vacancies just to make the councils workable. Unless there are practical changes made, the situation will only get worse. Meg Ireland 03:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Meg and John: are people clearly not buying it...or have the remaining citizens stopped selling? I think the latter. Perhaps I am not sufficiently familiar with what John means by "a more elaborate process," but Authors likely need to be encouraged to BYOE (bring your own editor) as a way of reclaiming this important role through self-interested recruitment. Am I incorrect in thinking the Council organizes approvals only if an Editor is not available? I realize this is the norm lately, but I wish to speak to causes and not symptoms. Christine Bush 03:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well Christine perhaps you can elucidate us. You've been an author on Citizendium since July 2013, for a total of 25 edits (only 5 before this month). If you really want the project to grow, where were you for the first 10 months? Meg Ireland 05:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Meg, the market may be small and declining, but it's there for the time being. Have you got an alternative USP to suggest? Wikipedia, Citizendium and Wikinfo all work on different principles, while Wikisage tries to hybridize them. I had a look through the WikiIndex Encyclopedia category the other day and couldn't find any other live ones in English of a general nature (as against Conservapedia, Anarchopedia and other obviously POV ones). It seems pointless to me to have different sites trying to do the same thing in the same way.

John, Editors are still allowed to exercise decisions, it's just that there are hardly any around to do so. And I'm certainly not opposed to the idea of bringing in "non-members with actual expertise" if someone can find a way of doing that. Peter Jackson 16:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Peter, many of these sites you mention Wikipedia, Wikinfo, Wikisage, Conservapedia, Anarchopedia are also suffering from decline in participation, to a varying degree. So, it's not just a Citizendium phenomenon. Perhaps people have just grown tired of the wiki format. Meg Ireland 08:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

They are indeed, and that may be the explanation. Alternatively, it may be that people are spreading more and more thinly over an ever-increasing number of wikis. At any rate, WikiIndex has over 20,000 pages, presumably most of them being actual wikis rather than related topics. Peter Jackson 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

-->sidebar: Where is the policy for nominating authors for editor status? I think Meg has demonstrated her authority in the music group and should be nominated to be an editor in that group. 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

The Music workgroup currently has no active editors (as has many other workgroups). My feeling is, that this situation is not going to change anytime soon. I think we need to sit down and brainstorm why Citizendium is not doing as well as it could, and what can be practically done to turn things around. Meg Ireland 15:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

CZ:Editor_Application_Review_Procedure is the one I found on a quick look. Peter Jackson 10:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, but the project is much more important than myself. I'd like to see some of the recruitment problems plaguing Citizendium be addressed before anything else. Meg Ireland 01:55, 13 June 2014 (UTC)