CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Yuval Langer
m (Moving Template:Editor Pages to the bottom of the page)
imported>John Stephenson
(Clean-up)
 
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This is a help page for the editors who review other editor applications, i.e., [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|Editorial Personnel Administrators]].
''See the footnotes for issues with this page and further explanations.''
{{TOC|right}}


== About admitting new ''Citizendium'' editors ==
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>


When we approve a new editor application (by pressing a button!), we automatically create the editor's user account and 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.  It is possible that 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 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>


Editor applicants use the same form that authors do; the review procedure is also similar to [[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.
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>
 
== 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.


== Step-by-step application review procedure ==
== Step-by-step application review procedure ==
Before you review any applications, please go to [[Special:ConfirmAccounts/editors&wpShowHeld=0|this page]] and '''bookmark it.'''  (The editor-in-chief has it in his "quick links" at the top of his browser.)  Please get in the habit of checking that page every time you log on to the wiki.
Here is a more detail on how to review an application:
 
It's not that difficult.  Think of it this way:
# Look over the application.  Make sure the person's identity is confirmed and that the person is a bona fide expert in the fields he or she has checked off.
# Write a little welcome message in the "Comment" field.
# Press "Confirm."
 
That's what you'll be doing most of the time.  Here is a more detailed of how to review, and approve or disapprove, an application:


=== Review application materials ===
=== Review application materials ===
# '''E-mail.'''  The thing to look at here is whether the e-mail address is from a free, anonymous service, or a paid service, and whether the person's name is part of the e-mail address.  If it is from a free service, we will require evidence that connects the person's e-mail address with the person's name (see below on that).  The e-mail address should have been confirmed by the time you look at the application (the person won't be able to log in without doing so).
# '''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).
# '''Main areas of interest.'''  After you look over the person's CV/resume, you should make sure that only those workgroup topics are checked in which the person can claim a bona fide specialization (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).
# '''Name.'''  The name should appear to be the name of a real person, not an Internet handle, and not just the person's first name or last name.  Titles and degrees (such as "Dr." and "Ph.D.") may not be in the name.  Note that the name can be edited, but should only be edited to expand to the full name, or to remove a title or degree.
# '''Bio.'''  Please read the 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).
# '''Other (identity) information.'''  We use this information to confirm a person's identity, which means establishing that: (1) a person by the name given actually exists; (2) a person with that name controls the e-mail address used; (3) the person so-named and reachable has the approximate configuration of credentials and interests listed in the bio.  As to how to use this information to confirm identity, see below.
# '''CV.''' Review it.
 
=== Confirm the person's identity ===
# It is usually easy to confirm an editor's identity, as many editors simply link to their CVs on their department pages and use the e-mail address they got from their institution.  This makes it easy to confirm name, e-mail address, and a few bio details.
# '''What to do'''
#* Examine the e-mail address.
#* 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.
#* 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.
#* If necessary, try using your search engine of choice for more information about the person.  We frequently do this for Author applications.
#* Review the CV
# '''What to check for'''
# '''What to check for'''
#* You must see evidence that there is a person so named.
#* You must also see evidence that that name is attached to the e-mail address.  If the e-mail address comes from a free service, you should find that e-mail address listed on a reasonably credible website somewhere, attached to the person's name (hint, you can Google the e-mail address itself).
#* 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.
#* 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.
# '''What to do if identity is not confirmed'''
#* You can ask for more info from the applicant.  To do this, type a note in the "Comment" field at the bottom of the page.  For example, you might say: "Please e-mail me at ___________, supplying more information that will allow us to identify you and connect you to your e-mail address.  Several things might help here.  For example, send the e-mail using a non-free e-mail address (especially one from an organization you've listed in your bio); follow the "BeenVerified" link on our application page, go through their (free) process, and send me the link to your BeenVerified page; or cite people that we can look up online and ask about you (who would be familiar with your e-mail address); or cite current members; or scan a copy of an ID card (but we might still need to connect your ID to your e-mail address); or list websites that mention your name, preferably ones that include your e-mail address."
#* 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.
#* 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 ===
=== Confirm the person's qualifications for editorship ===
# '''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 fields checked under "Main areas of interest." (Generally, we do require a CV or resume, but we make exceptions in certain cases.)
# '''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.)
# '''Check or uncheck 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 editor-in-chief or another EPA for guidance.
# '''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.
# '''Specialty editorship.''' Note that a person ''can'' be qualified for a "specialty editorship" even if he or she is not qualified for general editorship.  To accept a person as a specialty editor, (a) accept the application, checking off the workgroup under which the specialty falls, (b) navigate to the new person's page, and place a notice at the bottom of the person's page, such as the one seen [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Ben_Best here, for example.]  The notice should be brief, italicized, and signed (not dated) by you.
====Speciality Editorships====
# '''Questions?''' In case of any question, contact the editor-in-chief and/or other EPAs.
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:
 
:<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.''


=== Approve or reject the application ===
=== Rejecting the application ===
# '''If your decision is to approve the editorship application (in at least one field).'''
# '''If your decision is to reject the application (in all fields):'''
#* '''Fill out the "Comment" field.'''  Put a personal welcome message there.  This will be included in an e-mail sent to the applicant.  You might offer to help the person get started or with any questions.  There is no need to comment on fields that you might have unchecked.
#*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.
#* '''Press "Accept (create account)."'''  This will not just create the account, it will send an acceptance mail to the person, create the user page, add the appropriate categories, and put a welcome message on the user talk page.  (Note, this automatically adds the new editor to the author lists; there is no way to accept someone, automatically, as editor and not author.  But it's easy enough for the editor to delete the author tags, and that's all it takes.)  Done!
# '''If your decision is to reject the editorship application (in all fields), but accept as an author.'''
#* '''Select "Author" as Position.''' Go to the Position drop-down menu, at the top of the page, under "User account."  Select "author" thereby unselecting "author & editor".
#* '''Fill out the "Comment" field.'''  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 welcome the person as an author, and acknowledge that the person's editor application was declined (the e-mail does not, currently, specify that).
#* '''Press "Accept (create account)."'''  This will create an author account (only, if "author" was selected and "author & editor" was deselected).  Note that this will send the sort of welcome message typically sent to author applicants.
# '''If your decision is to reject both as editor and as author.'''
#* '''Why reject entirely?'''  You should reject as both editor and author only in cases where the biography is clearly not serious, or is nonsense; where the applicant refuses to confirm his identity; where the applicant refuses to use his real name; where the author has made clear that he does not in fact support our fundamental policies; and a few other cases.
#* '''Filling out the "Comment" field is optional.'''  If the application is unacceptable but in good faith, you should give some hint as to why it is rejected.
#* '''Press either "Reject (delist)" or "Spam (don't send email)."'''  Use the former for good-faith applications and the latter for obviously unserious, nonsensical, or spam-type applications.  "Reject" moves the application to the "recently rejected account list" (linked at the top of the page) and it sends a rejection notice to the person.
# '''Note that "Hold" is used for getting more information.'''  On its use, see above.  Applications that are "held" can be found in the "held pending account list" (linked at the top of the page).


== Some general rules ==
== Some general rules ==
Here are some general notes:
Here are some general notes:


* 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.  It's also quite acceptable to consult ''Citizendium'' editors who have the relevant expertise.  As persons with "sysop" rights, EPAs can locate an editor's e-mail address, in case an editor has turned off the "E-mail his user" function.  Simply navigate to the editor's user page, click on "Block user," and you'll find the e-mail address on that page.  (Of course, just clicking on "block user" will not block the user!)
* 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.   
* Occasionally, an editor applicant will ask for a pseudonym.  This is possible, but the decision to give a pseudonym is left to the discretion of the Chief Constable.  In the project's first year, we gave out less than 10 pseudonyms, all for excellent reasons.  Note that, even if we do give a contributor a pseudonym, we must still have confirmed that person's real identity!
* If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult with other EPAs, the Managing Editor, or the Council.
* If there is some significant question about a particular application, consult with other EPAs or with the editor-in-chief.
* 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.
* Only duly designated editorial personnel administrators can make decisions on editor applications.
 
== Editorial Personnel Administrators as a group ==
As a group, Editorial Personnel Administrators are not considered a governance body.  We are, essentially, project bureaucrats, handing out editorships to new editors.  We don't make the policy according to which we make these decisions.
 
A current list of all Editorial Personnel Administrators can be found at [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators]]. Here is a (possibly outdated) list, with the workgroups that they are editor in:
* [[User:Roger Lohmann|Roger Lohmann]] - sociology, history, politics
* [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] - mathematics
* [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] - Editor-in-Chief
* [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] - biology, engineering, health sciences
* [[User:David Shapinsky|David Shapinsky]] - history, journalism, media
* [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]] - chemistry, biology


We do not (yet) have a mailing list.  If you have a "tough one," you can poll the group or ask the editor-in-chief.
==Footnotes==
{{reflist|2}}


{{Editor Pages}}
{{Editor Policy}}

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"