CZ Talk:The Editor Role

Creating an encyclopedia is complicated; still, we'll keep this editor introduction brief but helpful. You can explore the links provided to get more in-depth information.

Not your usual editorship

Your role as Citizendium editor may not be what you might expect.

This is a wiki, first of all. For that reason, it is very different from most publishing projects you might have been involved with. It is run almost exclusively by volunteers, articles aren't signed, and everyone works side-by-side. Maybe most importantly, everyone may improve any article at will: there is no central authority assigning work. This may sound like anarchy, but it isn't. Your presence as an editor is one reason that it isn't--it's a living, breathing online polity, which can be more or less civilized. We hope you'll become an active part of this polity, because as a publishing model, it's extremely powerful.

Creating a "Citizens' Compendium" is actually a lot of fun, and it can be very 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.

Considering all this, editorship in the Citizendium differs greatly from traditional editorship. You neither assign work, nor is work assigned specifically to you. Rather, 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. Editors can have a wide variety of special responsibilities, but they share two basic ones: guiding the crafting of articles and approving articles. Editors may also be involved in governance roles, if they wish.

Guiding articles

An editor who is a specialist on a given topic may make decisions about and plan the articles on that topic. Generally, if an article and an editor are both assigned to a certain workgroup, then the editor has responsibility for that article. Editors may list instructions at the top of an article, and generally are asked to engage

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. Authors, too, defer to the editor. But this does not mean, of course, that the editor may flout Citizendium guidelines within impunity; authors may and occasionally do point out violations of policy. When necessary, dispute resolution is employed.

Approving articles

Article approval is a crucial step that we hope you will help us work toward. The actual act of 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 done so, however, then the article can be approved either by a group of three editors including yourself, or else another (uninvolved) editor entirely. For instructions, see Approval Process.

The combination of open, collaborative content development with expert approval may be unprecedented. We think that the work we have done so far demonstrates the strength of this model, and well illustrates why your involvement in this process is worth your while.

Governance roles

Editors may participate in two different sorts of governance bodies: Workgroups and the Editorial Council. Workgroups, when active, will set some policy and settle some content disputes with regard to articles in their care. The Editorial Council is broadly responsible for content policy.

How to get involved

But how can you do all that? Here's how to get involved as a Citizendium editor.

Get started

1. REGISTER.

First, of course, you need to sign up. Once you have an editor account, however, you might not hear back from anybody if you do nothing. So you need to take the next steps.

2. SIGN UP FOR MAILING LISTS.

If you don't sign up for mailing lists, you'll essentially be "out of the loop." Citizendium mailing lists are generally low-volume announcement lists. They aren't usually filled with a lot of talk. We tend to do our discussion on the Forums instead.

• Citizendium-L- for community-wide announcements (not discussion), averages less than one post per day
• Citizendium-Editors - it is essential that editors join; for editor-directed announcements only, very low traffic
• Workgroup mailing lists - again, it is essential that you editors join the mailing list in their discipline(s). For example, if you are an editor in the Philosophy Workgroup, then join cz-philosophy.

Staying plugged in

The main question on a new editor's mind is probably: "OK, what do I do?" The general task is to help improve Citizendium articles. But in particular,

Respond to workgroup review requests.

Anyone can request that workgroup editors article be reviewed by posting to the workgroup mailing list. When people make a review request, it is 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 do 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." Notice, near the top of the page, 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." Those are articles that should be close to approval. (If not, then the "status" should not be "1"--simply tell someone on the 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 note, if you're in an area that hasn't had so much activity, please don't give up. We're a new project; and other people will join and help you if you take the first step.

Monitor project-wide recent changes.

From any page at all, look to the left, under "project pages," for the "Recent changes" link. You might need to scroll up to see it. 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 on the article's talk page or the person's "user talk" page (go to the person's user page and then hit the "discussion" tab).

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.

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 [1] be initiated by someone (except the requester)?

1) How does being an editor differ from being an author?

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).

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?

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.