CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Larry Sanger
No edit summary
imported>John Stephenson
(Clean-up)
 
(25 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Editor Pages}}
''See the footnotes for issues with this page and further explanations.''
This is a help page for the editors who review other editor applications, i.e., [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|Editorial Personnel Administrators]].
{{TOC|right}}


== The editor application procedure ==
This is a help page for the [[CZ:Editor|Editors]] who review other Editor applications, i.e., [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|Editorial Personnel Administrators]].<ref>However, past EPAs have included [[CZ:Author|Authors]]. There is no rule against this, since EPAs were simply created by executive decision at the beginning of the project without any formal details on who could qualify.</ref>


The application procedure for editors is the same as [[CZ:Application Review Procedure|the procedure for authors]], except that editor candidates should ''also'' send to personnel@citizendium.org two additional items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. Both additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page.
As a group, Editorial Personnel Administrators are not considered a governance body.  They are, essentially, project bureaucrats, handing out Editorships to new Editors.  They don't make the policy according to which we make these decisions. EPAs are appointed by the [[CZ:Council|Citizendium Council]] for two-year terms.<ref>All appointees are limited to two-year terms by [[CZ:Charter#Article 35|Article 35]] of the Charter.</ref> Only duly designated Editorial Personnel Administrators and the Council can make decisions on Editor applications,<ref>It is unclear whether [[CZ:Charter#Article 16|Article 16]] of the Charter applies to new Editorships, or just to their removal.</ref> and Editorships may only be awarded to people who are already project members.<ref>See this [[CZ:Election July-August 2013/Referenda/8|referendum of August 2013]].</ref>


''Note:'' it is perfectly acceptable for an editor to get started as an author.  To become an editor, then, a person ''could'' simply place links to a CV, and perhaps other supporting material, on his or her user page, and then send a link to that page to personnel@citizendium.org.
A current list of all Editorial Personnel Administrators can be found [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|here]].<ref>There are none as of July 2014 due to expired terms and a resignation.</ref>


Also different are the items the editorial personnel administrators will add to the new editor's user page. They will use the <nowiki>{{ewelcome}}</nowiki> template and, unless the editor specifically requests otherwise, the links to online work and/or CV the editor supplied.
== About approving new ''Citizendium'' Editors ==
Candidates for full or Speciality Editorships<ref>Full Editors can approve articles and make editorial decisions on any article within their workgroup(s); Speciality Editors can do so only for articles clearly within their field.</ref> should send to constables@citizendium.org<ref>Technical support for the project is, as of July 2014, running at a minimum. The only citizendium.org e-mail address that staff reliably have access to is the 'constables' account. Constables actually have nothing to do with Editor applications but will forward material to EPAs.</ref> two items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page.  Both additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page.


== The editor application review rules ==
== Step-by-step application review procedure ==
Here is a more detail on how to review an application:


The application review procedure is very similar to that for authors; see [[CZ:Application Review Procedure|Application Review Procedure]].  Here are the differences, and additional notes:
=== Review application materials ===
# '''Main areas of interest.'''  Look over the person's CV/resume to make sure that the person can claim a bona fide specialization in the workgroup for which they are applying as an Editor (see below).
# '''Bio.'''  Please read their user page bio all the way through.  It must appear to be legitimate.  While all Citizens are required to have, at a minimum, some information about their interests and educational background, Editors must in addition have the information typically found in an academic or professional bio (e.g., degrees, institutions, and professional affiliations).
#* Visit any weblinks offered; there, look for the name as well as, preferably, the e-mail address, and evidence that the person has the characteristics listed in the biography.
#* If necessary, try using your search engine of choice for more information about the person.  We frequently do this for Author applications.
# '''What to check for'''
#* It would be unreasonable to ask anyone to confirm every detail of the bio.  It is enough to confirm several key points, which can usually be done quickly.
#* Most people are very cooperative when asking for more information; they wouldn't have applied if they didn't understand that we need to know who they are.


* Only duly designated editorial personnel administrators can make decisions on editor applications.
=== Confirm the person's qualifications for editorship ===
* If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult the editorial administrator list.
# '''Review qualifications.''' When you review the CV (or other information), look for two things: evidence of minimum qualification to be a ''Citizendium'' Editor (be familiar with '''[[CZ:Editor_Policy#Categories_of_Editorship|our requirements]]''') and a match-up between the person's claimed expertise and the workgroup(s) applied for.  (Generally, we do require a CV or resume, but we make exceptions in certain cases.)
* We check for (and, if necessary, request) more pieces of information (see above).  We must be quite sure that the person has the main credentials he or she claims. This requires a link to a credible Web site where the person's e-mail address can be found, or some equally credible means of establishing ''bona fides.''
# '''Check workgroups.'''  You should approve an application only after having made sure that exactly those workgroups in which a person is actually qualified to be an Editor are checked. Rarely does anyone have more than three fields, and most have one or two. When in doubt, ask the [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]], [[CZ:Council|Council]] or another EPA for guidance.
* We use <nowiki>{{ewelcome}}</nowiki> (the "editor welcome" template) rather than <nowiki>{{awelcome}}</nowiki>.
====Speciality Editorships====
* We add both <nowiki>[[Category:CZ Editors]]</nowiki> and the category of the most appropriate workgroup, such as <nowiki>[[Category:Philosophy Editors]]</nowiki>.
Note that a person ''can'' be qualified for a "Speciality Editorship" even if he or she is not qualified for general Editorship.  To accept a person as a Speciality Editor, (a) accept the application, (b) navigate to the person's page, and place a notice at the bottom of the person's page, indicating their speciality. The notice should be brief, italicized, and signed (not dated) by you:
* In the welcome message, it would be a good idea to include a link to the discipline editor category page (e.g., [[:Category:Philosophy Editors]]) and perhaps a few other pages such as the workgroup home page (e.g., [[:CZ:Biology Workgroup]]).
* Finished applications are filed in the "Editors - Yes - Done" folder.  Denied applications are placed in "Editors - No - Done".  E-mails that do not contain complete applications, i.e., which need more information, are placed in "Need more info" until the additional information is received.


* The general rules for "traditionally academic fields" and "traditionally professional fields" are found in [[CZ:Policy_Outline#Categories_of_Editorship|this section of the Policy Outline]].
:<nowiki>''Speciality Editor in <FIELD> - ~~~''</nowiki>
 
(The tildes will be replaced by your username.)
 
===Editor user page===
When we approve a new Editor application, we add to that Editor's user page the <nowiki>[[Category:CZ Editors]]</nowiki> tag, which adds the person to our [[:Category:CZ Editors|list of Editors]]. Only Editorial Personnel Administrators possess the authority to add such a tag. Someone begins as an [[CZ:Author|Author]] in our system, and then asks to be made an Editor; then it's just a matter of one of us adding the tag to the user page, as well as tags for the specific [[CZ:Workgroup|workgroup(s)]] in which they are Editors. The 'Author' categories are kept, since all Editors are also Authors. So Fred Smith's categories might read:
 
<nowiki>[[Category:CZ Editors|Smith, Fred]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[[Category:Biology Editors|Smith, Fred]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[[Category:CZ Authors|Smith, Fred]]</nowiki><br>
<nowiki>[[Category:Biology Authors|Smith, Fred]]</nowiki>
 
From regulation [http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-002/_Public_Editor_qualifications R-2001-002]:
 
*''All Editorial Personnel Administrators, when considering the credentials of any applicant to be an Editor, shall, in accepting that person for an Editorship, make public those qualifications, including academic degrees, that led the Editorial Personnel Administrator to accept the applicant.''
*''Moreover, these qualifications shall then be made part of the text of the User page of the successful applicant for Editorship.''
*''No Editorial Personnel Administrator will accept for Editorship any applicant who does not qualify for Editorship based solely upon his or her publicly revealable qualifications.''
*''The text of the Editor's user page may later be edited and rewritten at the User's discretion, but the above-mentioned qualifications and credentials must always remain visible to the casual reader.''
 
=== Rejecting the application ===
# '''If your decision is to reject the application (in all fields):'''
#*If you feel an explanation is in order--if the applicant is a borderline case, say--please be diplomatic and kind.  An explanation is not, however, required.  You should at least acknowledge that the person's Editor application was declined.
 
== Some general rules ==
Here are some general notes:
 
* In cases that are easy to decide, any EPA may make a decision; in more difficult cases, for an applicant in an area about which one of the editorial administrators has some special knowledge, that administrator should make the decision.  It's also quite acceptable to consult ''Citizendium'' Editors who have the relevant expertise. 
* If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult with other EPAs, the Managing Editor, or the Council.
* Note that in cases where a degree comes from a little-known university, investigation of the accreditation of the university may be appropriate.
* Note that in cases where a degree comes from a little-known university, investigation of the accreditation of the university may be appropriate.
* Decisions are to be made ''solely'' based on the stated objective criteria.  In particular, no decision will be made based on political, religious, or other ideological considerations. Political progressives should admit conservatives, and political conservatives should admit progressives; atheists should admit Christians, Christians Muslims, Muslims Jews; feminists should admit reactionaries and reactionaries should admit feminists; and so forth.  Any person who feels his application has been denied on grounds of ideology may have it re-reviewed by another editorial personnel administrator, and/or the editor-in-chief.
* Decisions are to be made ''solely'' based on the stated objective criteria.  In particular, no decision will be made based on political, religious, or other ideological considerations. Any person who feels his application has been denied on grounds of ideology may have it re-reviewed by another editorial personnel administrator, and/or the Managing Editor.
* Persons who are denied admission should receive a respectful and objective explanation.
* In cases that are easy to decide, any editorial admininistrator may make a decision; in more difficult cases, for an applicant in an area about which one of the editorial administrators has some special knowledge, that administrator should make the decision.


== The step-by-step review procedure ==
==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}


# Read application materials; try to decide what workgroups, if any, the person will be editor of.  Then,
{{Editor Policy}}
#* if the application needs more info, send for it and file;
#* if the person is not qualified, send a mail to that effect; and
#* otherwise, copy the editor categories for the welcome mail, and go on to the next step.
# Investigate whether person already has an account.
# If the person has an author account already, then:
#* add the editor tags to the user page; and
#* add an editor welcome message to the user talk page.
# If the person does not have an author account already, then:
#* write down username and password for the welcome mail,
#* create new account,
#* paste in bio on user page,
#* add editor tags,
#* add an editor welcome message to the user talk page, and
#* copy URLs for user pages and workgroup pages for welcome mail.
# Generate welcome mail.
# Send welcome mail.
# File application materials (see above).
# Move on to the next item.

Latest revision as of 07:35, 31 July 2014

See the footnotes for issues with this page and further explanations.

This is a help page for the Editors who review other Editor applications, i.e., Editorial Personnel Administrators.[1]

As a group, Editorial Personnel Administrators are not considered a governance body. They are, essentially, project bureaucrats, handing out Editorships to new Editors. They don't make the policy according to which we make these decisions. EPAs are appointed by the Citizendium Council for two-year terms.[2] Only duly designated Editorial Personnel Administrators and the Council can make decisions on Editor applications,[3] and Editorships may only be awarded to people who are already project members.[4]

A current list of all Editorial Personnel Administrators can be found here.[5]

About approving new Citizendium Editors

Candidates for full or Speciality Editorships[6] should send to constables@citizendium.org[7] two items: a CV or resume attached (or linked), as well as some links to Web material that tends to support the claims made in the CV, such as conference proceedings, or a departmental home page. Both additional requirements may be fulfilled by a CV that is hosted on an official work Web page.

Step-by-step application review procedure

Here is a more detail on how to review an application:

Review application materials

  1. Main areas of interest. Look over the person's CV/resume to make sure that the person can claim a bona fide specialization in the workgroup for which they are applying as an Editor (see below).
  2. Bio. Please read their user page bio all the way through. It must appear to be legitimate. While all Citizens are required to have, at a minimum, some information about their interests and educational background, Editors must in addition have the information typically found in an academic or professional bio (e.g., degrees, institutions, and professional affiliations).
    • Visit any weblinks offered; there, look for the name as well as, preferably, the e-mail address, and evidence that the person has the characteristics listed in the biography.
    • If necessary, try using your search engine of choice for more information about the person. We frequently do this for Author applications.
  3. What to check for
    • It would be unreasonable to ask anyone to confirm every detail of the bio. It is enough to confirm several key points, which can usually be done quickly.
    • Most people are very cooperative when asking for more information; they wouldn't have applied if they didn't understand that we need to know who they are.

Confirm the person's qualifications for editorship

  1. Review qualifications. When you review the CV (or other information), look for two things: evidence of minimum qualification to be a Citizendium Editor (be familiar with our requirements) and a match-up between the person's claimed expertise and the workgroup(s) applied for. (Generally, we do require a CV or resume, but we make exceptions in certain cases.)
  2. Check workgroups. You should approve an application only after having made sure that exactly those workgroups in which a person is actually qualified to be an Editor are checked. Rarely does anyone have more than three fields, and most have one or two. When in doubt, ask the Managing Editor, Council or another EPA for guidance.

Speciality Editorships

Note that a person can be qualified for a "Speciality Editorship" even if he or she is not qualified for general Editorship. To accept a person as a Speciality Editor, (a) accept the application, (b) navigate to the person's page, and place a notice at the bottom of the person's page, indicating their speciality. The notice should be brief, italicized, and signed (not dated) by you:

''Speciality Editor in <FIELD> - ~~~''

(The tildes will be replaced by your username.)

Editor user page

When we approve a new Editor application, we add to that Editor's user page the [[Category:CZ Editors]] tag, which adds the person to our list of Editors. Only Editorial Personnel Administrators possess the authority to add such a tag. Someone begins as an Author in our system, and then asks to be made an Editor; then it's just a matter of one of us adding the tag to the user page, as well as tags for the specific workgroup(s) in which they are Editors. The 'Author' categories are kept, since all Editors are also Authors. So Fred Smith's categories might read:

[[Category:CZ Editors|Smith, Fred]]
[[Category:Biology Editors|Smith, Fred]]
[[Category:CZ Authors|Smith, Fred]]
[[Category:Biology Authors|Smith, Fred]]

From regulation R-2001-002:

  • All Editorial Personnel Administrators, when considering the credentials of any applicant to be an Editor, shall, in accepting that person for an Editorship, make public those qualifications, including academic degrees, that led the Editorial Personnel Administrator to accept the applicant.
  • Moreover, these qualifications shall then be made part of the text of the User page of the successful applicant for Editorship.
  • No Editorial Personnel Administrator will accept for Editorship any applicant who does not qualify for Editorship based solely upon his or her publicly revealable qualifications.
  • The text of the Editor's user page may later be edited and rewritten at the User's discretion, but the above-mentioned qualifications and credentials must always remain visible to the casual reader.

Rejecting the application

  1. If your decision is to reject the application (in all fields):
    • If you feel an explanation is in order--if the applicant is a borderline case, say--please be diplomatic and kind. An explanation is not, however, required. You should at least acknowledge that the person's Editor application was declined.

Some general rules

Here are some general notes:

  • In cases that are easy to decide, any EPA may make a decision; in more difficult cases, for an applicant in an area about which one of the editorial administrators has some special knowledge, that administrator should make the decision. It's also quite acceptable to consult Citizendium Editors who have the relevant expertise.
  • If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult with other EPAs, the Managing Editor, or the Council.
  • Note that in cases where a degree comes from a little-known university, investigation of the accreditation of the university may be appropriate.
  • Decisions are to be made solely based on the stated objective criteria. In particular, no decision will be made based on political, religious, or other ideological considerations. Any person who feels his application has been denied on grounds of ideology may have it re-reviewed by another editorial personnel administrator, and/or the Managing Editor.

Footnotes

  1. ↑ However, past EPAs have included Authors. There is no rule against this, since EPAs were simply created by executive decision at the beginning of the project without any formal details on who could qualify.
  2. ↑ All appointees are limited to two-year terms by Article 35 of the Charter.
  3. ↑ It is unclear whether Article 16 of the Charter applies to new Editorships, or just to their removal.
  4. ↑ See this referendum of August 2013.
  5. ↑ There are none as of July 2014 due to expired terms and a resignation.
  6. ↑ Full Editors can approve articles and make editorial decisions on any article within their workgroup(s); Speciality Editors can do so only for articles clearly within their field.
  7. ↑ Technical support for the project is, as of July 2014, running at a minimum. The only citizendium.org e-mail address that staff reliably have access to is the 'constables' account. Constables actually have nothing to do with Editor applications but will forward material to EPAs.


Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Editor_Application_Review_Procedure&oldid=22442"