Template:CharterVote2/4/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Clause 2 needs a qualifier. If editors are empowered to "assure" the site's "reliability" and "quality" at all times, then editors are empowered to swoop down on any unsuspecting writer at any time and badger them about "inaccurate" and "unreliable" content. Writing is a process of figuring out knowledge, working out what's right and what's not. Let the authors author. Editors should be responsible for the reliability and quality of only the APPROVED CONTENT. If it's not approved by our experts, then it's just as good as WP. I propose the following: Jones 20:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

• I'll agree to that. D. Matt Innis 21:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest "quality-reviewed content", or some equivalent. We have, I think, Developing and Developed for good reason. If Editors only become involved in Approval, we limit too much. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Expert's are also expected to guide content toward reliability and quality. That should be in here somewhere, too. -Joe Quick 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Make your suggestion and I'll vote. D. Matt Innis 00:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What about

2. in assuring that the site's approved content is reliable and meets high quality standards.

3. in guiding content development towards approval and reapproval.

or simply

2. in guiding content development towards reliability and quality.

instead of the two above?

--Daniel Mietchen 23:01, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is overlap with article 7. --Daniel Mietchen 23:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(undent) #2 alone deals nicely with avoiding making Approved the only place where there can be oversight. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If Article 7 retains a point about approval and high quality, we can drop it from here. I think the two articles should be kept separate, because "expert" and "editor" mean slightly different things, "editor" being an official position given to experts. Thus, we can distinguish between things that experts do simply as experts and things that editors do as a result of their official powers. Assuring high quality in approved articles is an editor job. So, for this article, I think Daniel and Howard are right:

• 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.

-Joe Quick 13:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Okay Agreed. D. Matt Innis 17:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Interesting distinction between expert and editor, but do you think it is obvious to others?
• This is functionally meaningless. So I'm an expert but not an editor. How, exactly, will I "Define content standards" or "guide content development" in the face of a prejudiced editor? Is this intended to mean just that "experts are free to write at CZ?" Are the botanists going to rebel against the biologists? What if the biology editors (who happen [e.g.] to be all mamologists) define botany in ways that botanists' find offensive? Or is this just intended to be a statement that CZ appreciates experts? (If so, can't it go in the preamble?) I'm voting in favor of it, but with the recognition that this article does not grant any citizen special rights, status, or powers. Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated. Suppose the EC adopts a rule that content disputes should be resolved in favor of the author who has the greatest number of edits. And in a particular dispute on the Ann Arbor Railroad for instance, say Howard and I (who, for the sake of this example, are not editors) get into a dispute over some fact. The dispute would be resolved in favor of Howard who has the greater number of edits instead of me who has the more expert knowledge about the AARR [I'm making an educated guess here, Howard]. If banning that sort of EC behavior is intended here, this article needs to be A LOT clearer. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 11:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• It really should be in the preamble. D. Matt Innis 12:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This is getting into detailed EC procedure; "Or is this intended to be a directive to the EC that policies that do not favor expertise shall not be tolerated." is more at the Charter level.

Further, take Russell's example. I am totally untrained in the Ann Arbor Railroad, but I am an Engineering Editor, the workgroup that has been getting transportation topics. While I do know a good deal about aviation and marine transport, I really know very little about trains. If I ruled against Russell and I were the only Engineering editor, what would be his appeal? For that matter, if there were additional Editors, where do they come in? What is the role of the ME here? Howard C. Berkowitz 15:12, 20 July 2010 (UTC)