Template:CharterVote2/5/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Agree with Daniel's initial comment. -Joe Quick 00:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. 4 and 5 could be switched. D. Matt Innis 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Articles 4 and 5 be switched. Russell D. Jones 15:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

"Commentary?" Really? Jones 03:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive commentary comments will not be tolerated.

Agree. D. Matt Innis 03:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Language?" Jones 03:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Better, Agree. D. Matt Innis 11:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Language and behavior. This might be the place to deal with the issue raised by Larry in his email. I found a definition for "nuisance" in a legal dictionary (see also the second definition at dictionary.com) that might be helpful: people do not have the right to interfere with another person's enjoyment of personal property or public space. If we're careful, we can use that here.

• Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language and behavior will not be tolerated. No Citizen shall have the right to interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter.

Oops, forgot to sign the above. -Joe Quick 14:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be on to something here, Joe. Part of the legal remedy for a nuisance is injunction, an order to desist. I brought this up before, so now seems like a good time to do it again. See below: Russell D. Jones 15:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Citizens shall act responsibly and in a civil manner: derogatory or offensive language or behavior will not be tolerated. Citizens who interfere with another Citizen's rights as delineated by this Charter or who violate rules established by either the Managerial or Editorial Councils shall be subject to administrative action [prosecution?] upon complaint of the aggrieved citizen, the punishment of which may include, but is not limited to, suspension from the Citizendium for a period of time or permanent expulsion. Other administrative actions may be established by the Managerial Council.

• Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions in the Main, Talk, User, or Image namespaces and in other namespaces as identified by the Management Council. This does not mean that Citizens are barred from collaborating in other namespaces, but it does mean that their contributions in these namespaces deserve the courtesy of respect.
  

• All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editor and officers.
  

• Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages.

• All citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium.
  

• In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors.
  

• Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves in any dispute resolution process.
  

• Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character or point of view of the citizen.
  

• Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say.
  

This is looking good, but could you elaborate on what you have in mind by other namespaces? Are you thinking of policy pages, Cold Storage, and partner or relationships such as a separate Eduzendium space? (as an aside, if there were a separate Eduzendium space, there could be a specific pseudonym rule that applies to it, or other spaces where pseudonyms may be required. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why some namespaces are different than others when it comes to respect from other Citizens. Also, "the right to request the help of other citizens or editors," sounds like ganging up on an opponent in sanctioned; what about "the right to request the help of editors or the Ombudsman"? -Joe Quick 19:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I like this list, Russell, great work. We finally have a Bill of Rights. I'll have to take some time to think them all through, but overall my impression is good.

Joe, I think I like "other citizens or editors" better. I don't think there is anything wrong with asking a friend to help convince someone else. They may know someone that is more knowledgable than they are on a particular problem - or maybe at communicating it. Our purpose should be to get to the best formulation of the problem - no matter who makes it - and then the editors can decide from the information presented to them by the collaborating author/s. I'm just thinking that we should not restrict it to cases of dispute. But, I am still listening.

Joe, the ideas behind "other citizens or editors" are (1) the right to counsel and (2) the right to have people speak in your defense. you're right, the language is garbeled. We don't have "counsel" at CZ, so it's kinda pointless to put in the right to counsel in the charter. But neither should you be expected or forced to defend yourself solely on your own. Russell D. Jones 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors

D. Matt Innis 22:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I like much of this list too but think it is too exhaustive for one article at the level of detail that we now have in the Charter. --Daniel Mietchen 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree to striking "in cases of dispute." Still confused about the namespace issue and even if that is too detailed. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The idea behind identifying the namespaces was that it would identify certain areas where authors are presumed to be competent authorities. The CZ and Template namespaces are not listed as we don't want novices mucking around in the templates and so we should be able to discipline someone who does muck something up there, but on the other hand, they might actually know what they're doing so if they want to risk it, I'd let them. On the other hand, an author should feel secure that what he or she is doing in the Main Namespace is not going to be scrutinized or harrassed just for writing. Whereas if they were doing similar things in the Template space or the CZ (policy) spaces, their work should be scrutinized immediately. That was the idea.

It might be a distinction without a difference, but I was trying here really to define in real terms protections for authors. Russell D. Jones 00:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Should it be shortened? Russell D. Jones 00:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions.

Agree to the shorter version. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This point:

• Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process.

My concern is that a biased editor/constable/ME should be able to make their case to a court just as the author can. But, they should not be allowed to officiate in the dispute resolution... is a workgroup discussion part of dispute resolution? - an editor would be officiating there (and we want them to). Other than that, I agree with all of the rest. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Citizens shall have the right to expect respect of their competency from other citizens regarding any of their contributions.
• All citizens shall be equal and no special privileges shall be granted except those granted in this charter to editor and officers.
• Citizens shall be considered editors of their own user pages and all of its subpages.
• All citizens shall be treated fairly and respectfully by other citizens, editors, and officers of the Citizendium.
• In cases of dispute, citizens have the right to request the help of other citizens or editors.
• Citizens should expect officers and editors to be fair and impartial. And should expect biased officers and editors to recuse themselves from their official positions in any dispute resolution process.
• Citizens should expect that dispute resolutions should be resolved on the basis of the evidence and not upon the character, point of view, or politics of the citizen.
• Citizens shall not have any decision rendered against them in a dispute resolution process for which they have not had opportunity to have their say.
  

Agree. D. Matt Innis 01:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Added Or politics after Matt signed. Russell D. Jones 01:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)