CZ:Proposals/Subgroups in addition to Workgroups?

This proposal has been assigned to the Editorial Council, and is now in the Editorial Council proposals queue.

Driver: Chris Day

Overview

Subgroups can represent a subset of editors and authors from a workgroup with a niche interest, be a vehicle for collaboration between different workgroups, a navigation tool or all of these concepts.

Rationale

The breadth of some workgroups is huge, so it makes sense to break them down into more natural subgroups. Within biology and engineering alone whole academic departments can be based on a subset of those workgroups disciplines, i.e. Botany.

There is also an interdisciplinary need for subgroups. Take a hypothetical subgroup called Biochemistry Subgroup, it should involve editors and authors from at least three different workgroups, Health Sciences, Biology and the Chemistry Workgroup.

A further advantage is that readers will be able to use the Subgroup categories to focus on articles in a particular discipline. An electrical engineer can first look at the Electrical Engineering Subgroup category. A military historian can first look at the Military History Subgroup category. A thermodynamics student can first look at the Thermodynamics Subgroup category. Those readers will find it harder to find specific articles somewhere amidst a great many articles in the Engineering category or the History category or the Chemistry category. Obviously related articles subpages will serve these readers better as they get tuned to citizendiums other navigation tools but as a first bite these Subgroup categories will serve as an effective corral for some topics.

The genesis of a subgroup

Workgroups are a collection of topic areas in citizendium that rarely change. To add a new workgroup requires top down approval. In contrast, the number and names of various subgroups should be more fluid within the limitation that one cluster can only be in up to three different subgroups (this will limit the narrowness of subgroups).

Who can start a subgroup?

Authors and editors can initiate any subgroup idea but it will be up to each workgroups editors to recognise and endorse "affiliated" subgroups. This is preferable to having to go as high as the editorial council, as with requests for new workgroups. This bottom up approach should encourage the creation of experimental subgroups and lead to fertile collaborations within citizendium.

Which subgroups are needed?

Editors decide which subgroups are relevant and will add the appropriate ones to their workgroup (see an explanation on how to use the A-D parameters below in section "How to start a Subgroup"). If editors from another workgroup feel there is an interdisciplinary connection, they too might consider adding their workgroup to the subgroup template. Subgroups may well come and go in a Darwinian manner depending on the various interests of editors and authors and whether it is affiliated with any workgroup.

How do we prevent redundancy?

We need a mechanism to prevent redundancy. i.e. we may not want two similar subgroups such as Protein Structure Subgroup and Macromolecule Structure Subgroup. At present this would probably be an informal process but could require a more formal process as the citizendium community grows.

Implementation

The subgroup name will be added to the metadata of any article falling under the umbrella of that particular subgroup of authors. This idea is currently active and seen in the metadata template as the three fields of sub1, sub2 and sub3. These fields can be used to denote the affiliation of any article cluster; up to three different subgroups can be added per cluster. An example edit can be seen at the Chemical engineering article where the Category:Chemical Engineering Subgroup is being used as a pilot for this idea.

The subgroups home

The home for each subgroup will be at 'CZ:NAME subgroup' and there will be a 'Category:NAME subgroup' page that lists all the articles within the subgroup, where NAME is the desired subgroup name.

How to start a subgroup

1) Create a template titled Template:NAME Subgroup.

2) Add the following to the template: {{Subgroup|NAME|A|B|C|D}}. A-D are four optional parameters that can be added by editors to affiliate their Workgroup with the subgroup.

Thus, Template:Chemical Engineering Subgroup has {{Subgroup|Chemical Engineering|Engineering|Chemistry}} in the body of the template.

3) The template {{NAME Subgroup}} should be placed at the top of the CZ home page for the subgroup and its talk page as well as each category in the subgroup. For example, our model subgroup currently has the following pages:

CZ:Chemical Engineering Subgroup

CZ talk:Chemical Engineering Subgroup

Category:Chemical Engineering Subgroup

Category:Chemical Engineering Approved

Category:Chemical Engineering Editors

Category:Chemical Engineering Authors

Category:Chemical Engineering tag

Any categories at the foot of a page and/or descriptive text for each page is automatically added based on the parameters A-D.

How to navigate subgroup pages

The navigation bar at the top will lead one to all the relevant pages using standard hyperlinks.

Each affiliated Workgroup is hyperlinked in the subpages navigation header and an affiliated workgroup category is placed at the foot of the CZ:Subgroup home (See an example of the affiliated subgroups category for the engineering workgroup at Category:Engineering Affiliated Subgroups). This type of category will be used to track all the subgroups that affiliate with any given workgroup.

How to customize subgroup headers

Each subgroup will have a grey coloured navigation bar by default. See the genetics example here. It is possible, however, to have a jazzy workgroup banner at the top IF there is an image at the location "Image:NAME banner.jpg" where NAME refers to the subgroup name. Below is an example for Chemical Engineering, see the banner insitu at the home page for the Chemical Engineering Subgroup.

Example of a Subgroup specific banner.

How to invite your colleagues

Authors and Editors can be added to a Subgroup by adding the appropriate category tags to their user page (either {{Category:NAME Editor}} or {{Category:NAME Author}}, where NAME refers to the subgroup name). Anyone can add themselves as an author, of course.

It should be noted that the editor label does not give special editorial rights outside their designated workgroup! It is merely to identify members of the subgroup that are editors in one or more workgroups. Note: there may well be clusters tagged in the Subgroups collection that a "subgroup editor" cannot recommend for approval.

Summary

Since the pilot Chemical Engineering Subgroup was initiated it has added 122 articles and 18 of them have been approved. Of those 122 articles they include content that is overlapping with the Engineering, Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences Workgroups demonstrating the potential for interdisciplinary collaborations within the environment of a Subgroup.

Discussion

For historical background, or more detailed discussion, there is a forum thread on this topic titled sub-workgroups.

I think its a good idea, but might be unnecessary considering how inactive we are. After all, I'm one to talk, haven't been around here properly since last May. Its definately something that could be used in the future, even as a cousin of the Wikipedia project pages. Denis Cavanagh 15:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Denis, I agree with your assessment. I think the one good reason for doing this now is that it is good to have the mechanism in place for when its ready to be used efficiently. Once it is in place we will be able to fine tune it so it is really ready for prime time. Also, we do have a few users who are already making good use of it. The clear example is chemical engineering. In that case i think it could also be used as a recruitment tool. I might well set up a genetics version too, if nothing else to organise some of my thoughts with respect to topics for class. Chris Day 16:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with Chris that it would be good to have this mechanism in place now for the reason he gives above and for all the reasons that have been presented in the lengthy Forums discussion of this subject. Milton Beychok 17:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for barging in! Unaware a discussion had taken place on the forums. Chris offers a very persuading rationale and I do support this. Denis Cavanagh 19:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No apologies needed. In fact, I should link to the relevant discussion in the forum, that makes a lot of sense. Chris Day 19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the redundancy question: it seems to me that redundancy would be controlled by the editors. They would have the responsibility to reject redundant subgroups. I'd also like to see some threshold of need met, say two (three?) editors from each group approving the subgroup before creation. Russell D. Jones 02:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Russell, I agree with you that Workgroup editors should control what subgroups need to be created. However, as matters stand now, it is difficult to find two or three active editors in some workgroups. For example, the Engineering Workgroup has only two active editors at best. One of the reasons for creating subgroups is that it might encourage more editors to participate. But for the time being, I suggest that one or two active (and I emphasize the word active) editors be all that is needed to endorse the creation of a subgroup. Milton Beychok 03:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

In the section above #Which subgroups are needed? we write that "Editors decide which subgroups are relevant". Given the discussion above why don't we make this more specific, as suggested by Milt above. I think his suggested requirement for active editors is a valid one. Just to clarify though, Milt suggests that two editors should be required to start a subgroup whereas in this proposal it would be two editors are required to endorse a subgroup. I know this is a subtle difference but i think there is quite a significant distinction. When i wrote this i was thinking that anyone could start a subgroup and then, if it was seen to have a useful role, the better ones would "win" endorsement from editors. My reasoning here is sometimes it is not clear what we need and thus a test period might be desirable to see how it works out. Just a thought. Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Reworking Overall Workgroup Policy Pages

I'd like to see most of this page (once this policy is adopted), minus the discussion, moved to CZ:Subworkgroups. Should there also be a subworkgroups page started like CZ:Workgroups or could that be handled by a category page? CZ:Workgroups right now is just a list of workgroups. I think CZ:Notes on launching workgroups should be moved to CZ:Workgroups because that is where the policy on workgroups should be. Then CZ:Subworkgroups could be branched from there (e.g., "See also CZ:Subworkgroups"). Russell D. Jones 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should the name be subgroup or subworkgroup? In the end i favoured subgroup since it was shorter but maybe subworkgroup is more descriptive? Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Subworkgroup is more descriptive and accurate as it is clear that it is an under-level of a workgroup. But subgroup is shorter. CZ does not have "Groups," as far as I know, other than "Workgroups," so there wouldn't be any confusion. Maybe someday "Newsgroups," "authorgroups," etc., which becomes an argument to reserve "subgroup". Once choice is made, though, nearly impossible to change without bot. I'm okay with "subgroup" too. I'll concur with Milt on this and leave it to you. Russell D. Jones 15:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll go with subgroup. One of my reasons for switching from subworkgroup originally was that there is an implication (and misconception in the discussion on the forum) that a subworkgroup is a subset of a specific workgroup. Given the emphasis on multidisciplinary interaction we want to encourage between workgroups, subgroup might be a less confusing name. Chris Day 04:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Next Step

I think this prop is mostly baked. Chris, you've listed "Implementation" as the next step. Does this mean that no CZ decision-making body need sanction this proposal? Russell D. Jones 14:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. I guess I meant everything is in place for implementation. I assume this will need to go for a vote. Chris Day 14:31, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Should we send it to the ed council? Russell D. Jones 17:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is almost ready. Let's just finalize the name and the role of editors and rewrite the proposal to reflect that consensus (see my two comments above). Then it is ready to got to the EC. Chris Day 17:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no preferences. Subworkgroups is a bit more cumbersome but it is more descriptive. I leave it to you, Chris. As for the role of editors, whether they start or endorse (after a test period) the subgroup (or subworkgroup), I still think is should be two "active" editors ... and I hope we don't get involved with trying to define "active" editors. Milton Beychok 18:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Name: up to Chris. Role of editors: To (1) sign on to approve subgroup (add names to template); (2) one editor (at least) from each covering workgroup; (3) one of the approving editors will place subgroup in some sort of subgroup list (like the article approval system, somebody has to go and change article status; we should have same or similar procedure for subgroup approval). (4) We should also have a policy for subgroup elimination (e.g., how is a subgroup destroyed; should be harder than creating a group). But this can be later amendment to policy.

  What about Sub-Subgroups? e.g. {{Subgroup|History of Biology|History of Science|History|Biology}} or {{Subgroup|History of Chemical Engineering|History|Chemical Engineering}}. Plus, I just saw another problem. No "Science" workgroup. So how do we create a "history of science" subgroup? Russell D. Jones 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

In my view History of Science does not need to be a subgroup of science. I would envisage it being {{Subgroup|History of Science|History|Biology|Chemistry|Physics}} Now comes the problem, we only have four slots for the affiliated workgroups, clearly more sciences will want to be affiliated with such as subgroup. So maybe we need more? Maybe there should be no limit?

With regard to sub-subgroups, I had never considered this need. Thinking about it a bit I'm not sure there is a need. Using your example, why not {{Subgroup|History of Chemical Engineering|History|Engineering}}? I'll think about this some more. Chris Day 04:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Chemical Engineering Example

To log editor approval, I assumed that there would be someplace where the approving editors would log their approval. In the Chemical Engineering example, the subgroup points to the Chemical Engineering article. It would seem then that the approving editors should (would) also work on the subgroup main article and get that through approval. Does this mean then that in order for the subgroup to be approved, the subgroup main article has to be approved? Russell D. Jones 15:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposals System Navigation (advanced users only)

Help/policy New proposals List of all proposals Driverless proposals: proposals that lack a champion Discarded proposals: poorly formed proposals Templates: {{Proposal}} | {{Proposal assignment}} | {{Proposals navigation}}

Proposal lists (some planned pages are still blank): Editorial Council: Active | Finished | Declined Approval and Feedback: Active | Finished | Declined Eduzendium: Active | Finished | Declined Recruitment: Active | Finished | Declined Constabulary: Active | Finished | Declined Executive: Active | Finished | Declined Technical: Active | Finished | Declined PR: Active | Finished | Declined Ad hoc management: Active | Finished | Declined