CZ:Charter/Brainstorm

This page and its parent page are dedicated to drafting a charter for Citizendium and should only be edited by those eight Citizens elected to the drafting Committee. Other Citizens, please comment on the dedicated thread at the Citizen Forum. Non-Citizens can comment in a separate thread at the non-Member Forum. The drafting period shall end when November 12, 2009 is over all around the globe.

General points

• The encyclopedia author's task is to objectively recount what is already established and known about each topic, not to offer his or her own determinations about it. The composition of Citizendium articles is guided by "Editors", who have demonstrated expertise in what is established and known about the topics they oversee.
• Citizendium is a knowledge project
• We accumulate knowledge as an evolving network of theoretical concepts and practical experience
• the still fledgling Citizendium currently seems to be the closest match for a cross-disciplinary scholarly wiki anchored in the real world
• Just imagine if all authors currently writing up manuscripts about a subject were instead to coordinate their efforts by collaborating on a single but detailed and balanced citable reference in which the topic would be described in and linked to all relevant contexts, updated as new research results pass peer review.
• Citizendium is a community of people from all walks of life and all corners of the world coming together for the sole purpose of creating a reliable and credible compendium of knowledge.
• Citizendium should be a community of people who celebrate the diversity that comes with any large community and not only tolerate, but showcase, organize and discuss all the differences in culture, lifestyle and beliefs that make up what we know as Life.
• Expert guidance on Citizendium is not simply fact checking. It is providing expert perspective to contextualize and interconnect knowledge.
• the Charter's main purpose should be to dictate who (or what entity) has the responsibility to create and/or amend each policy and how they should do it, ie. - what percentage of a quorum can change a policy.
• (an example of a goal from a talk archive, describing contextualization): macro-level article on the [top-level subject] that would put the many [subtopics]] into a broad context and then linking to (not redirecting from) an article called [very important subtopic] ... Much of the article also remains at the high policy level (national politicians deciding national direction and military objectives); there is no ground-level description of the wars here.
• Knowledge should not be orphaned. Ideally, every article will have several links to and from other articles, and can be traced to a top-level article.
• Not just facts: context, explication/exposition/explanation and exploration with the goal of engendering greater understanding
• Systematic survey
• In an encyclopedia article you would probably only describe an individual study if it was exceptionally important. An encyclopedia article is a display of breadth of knowledge more than depth.
• Not a place for advocacy or "giving voices" to specific issues.
• Breadth for top level articles, levels of depth for subpages, ie student/advanced/debate or clarifying a concept from the top level.
• An expert knows both the breadth and depth of a field.
• consensus among experts vs popular consensus
• majority rule, minority rights
• Everyone is a lay person nearly everywhere
• Provide quality and naming standards.

Preamble

Hover over the marked terms to see a brief definition. A detailed explanation of their meaning in the context of the charter is available by clicking on them, which leads to the #Appendix.

1. Citizendium is a collaborative knowledge project that emphasizes objectivity and recognition of expertise. The broad audience is assumed to want professional (or knowledgeable) expertise and confidence in their information.
2. Citizendium provides a living, evolving repository for the systematic presentation of knowledge sources and ideas.
3. Citizens commit themselves to transparent governance and responsible authorship by using their real names.
4. Citizendium content will bear identifiers giving the confidence of its experts on the material. Content experts will have verified real-world expertise.

This looks like a really good start. Within the definitions, I would like to see dictionary-type definitions first and then an explanation of how they are to be understood in the context of the charter. "Objectivity" would be something along the lines of: "Based on observations that are not biased by emotion or opinion. At Citizendium, this means..." Does that sound reasonable? --Joe Quick 21:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll move the longer parts to separate sections in the #Appendix then, keeping just the dictionary-like definitions for the mouse-overs. --Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that they need to be moved, but I do think they should be a little more direct. The definition for "objectivity", in particular, includes things that are not at all implied by the word: expert knowledge, for example, is not necessary for someone or something to be objective. --Joe Quick 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they probably need to be shortened too. The text disappears after a second or so, shich is definitely not enough time for most people to read those blurbs. --Joe Quick 21:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The blurb for "real names" is very direct at the outset, but too long. The first bit would be a good model for other definitions, I think. --Joe Quick 21:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, here is my first try. Let's see how it works. --Daniel Mietchen 22:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I think we're going a bit overboard with the whole definitions sideshow, to the point of it being a distraction from the main text of the charter. I think it can also serve to deter newcomers, who are likely to be bewildered or even alienated by all the idiosyncratic terminology. Shamira Gelbman 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, get rid of the Citizendium definitions and go with the dictionary definitions. If we aren't using the common dictionary use of the word, then we better explain it right there and then. Otherwise, we look as though we're trying to pull some wool over some eyes. By the way, I don't agree with the statement with our definition of objectivity, though I am fine with it with the dictionary version. D. Matt Innis 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please get rid of the mouse-overs. They are distracting, difficult to edit, and also a significant problem for users that have motor or visual disabilities.

Matt, if you disagree with the objectivity definition, please propose one. For anyone, if you don't like text, offer substitutes. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with dropping the appendix and also the mouse-overs — they were just a demo, since the question of using them has been brought up. I do think, however, that we should make use of the wiki-native way of defining key terms (i.e. via links to pages or sections that host the charter-specific definitions) if they can be interpreted in various ways. --Daniel Mietchen 23:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the mouseovers being a distraction right now, maybe later. Howard, I suggest we use Encarta's definition of objectivity:

1. . ability to view things objectively: the ability to perceive or describe something without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices
2. . accuracy: the fact or quality of being accurate, unbiased, and independent of individual perceptions

However, I note that we seem to be avoiding the word Neutrality even though this is probably the place to use that word. It is close to the definition that we are currently offering as "objectivity".

D. Matt Innis 23:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I freely confess to avoiding "neutrality", because experience has shown that the original definition is not intuitive and has led to endless arguments. Right now, there is a great deal of confusion on the balance between expertise and neutrality. I'd rather see us avoid the baggage with those arguments and try to get a clear consensus. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that the best that we can hope to do with the charter is set up the pathway to amend the current Neutrality policy. If we go ahead and use the word neutrality here (and wikilink it), then set up the process to alter any Citizendium policy, then at some point after the Charter is enacted, we can go about creating the committee that will address the neutrality policy. Every policy deserves its own thoughtful and democratic process.

I like the word objective. I would even like to see it used somewhere. But, I don't think the definition that we have introduced is "objectivity." It is actually closer to "Neutrality" and needs to be brought up again when we review that policy.

Every great document has a preamble that gives everyone a sense of unity with a common purpose. I like the way Howard's first version did this. Maybe we can still use it and then use this as the "Essential principles".. or something like that. It's not like we need to save space! D. Matt Innis 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Appendix

This section expands on the brief definitions available in the mouse-overs and contains detailed definitions of the key terms used in the charter, highlighting their use at Citizendium.

Knowledge

In the encyclopedic part of Citizendium, this will mean structured information that has been independently verified. In other parts, information can be deposited if it is presented such that it can be independently verified.

Objectivity

Information presented objectively is based on expert knowledge, which includes giving the context and justification for substantially supported views of the topic. When multiple responsible views exist, enough information must be given that the reader can understand the merits and weaknesses of the positions. There is no requirement to present every minority view in depth, although deprecated views may be identified.

Recognition of expertise

Each discipline has its own criteria; not even all academic fields have identical standards for expert level. Citizendium recognizes that verifiable experience in a field can be gained outside a campus.

Repository

A flexible environment for the storage of systematically retrievable and (“browsable”—find a better word) information of many types.

Systematic representation

Beyond objectivity, the information is presented in context. This may include subarticles that provide a less detailed introduction or advanced nuances of the topic. Compare-and-contrast methods, at least through Related Articles, let the reader consider parallel situations.

Real names

The default assumption will be that contributors will use verified real names for material that Citizendium will present to the public. Some exceptions may be allowed on a restricted basis. If an individual can satisfy the appropriate personnel administrators that using their real name would present a real danger, or perhaps prevent their participation due to employer rules, pseudonyms may be granted, although there still will be identity verification. If academic-style anonymous review is used, the reviewer(s) of individual articles may not be public,although their identities and credentials will have been verified, and a master list of reviewers periodically published as long as it is large enough that individual identities cannot be deduced.

Disagree with this. Please define 'real danger'. The loophole in this is someone claiming their life is threatened simply to avoid the CZ process. So how does one prove that the users life is in danger? It's based entirely on that users word. Nothing verifiable in that. [???] ...said Meg Ireland (talk)

Let me take a different example, where the request was overtaken by events. I knew a peacekeeping expert with an international organization, whose policy absolutely forbade public statements by its staff other than in the public relations office. The individual's current employment status and past experience was verifiable. I saw it as an opportunity to get material from a true expert. As it happened, the person was transferred to an area with no real Internet access, so the matter became moot. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From past experience Howard, when a loophole exists it will be exploited, mostly for ill. Just how many users on CZ are using pseudonyms and how many are active contributors? This I would like to know....said Meg Ireland (talk)

I suppose the Constabulary can tell us. Don't misconstrue; I would see this as an extremely rare case. If a government, for example, is repressive enough that it will take action for political commentary, that government is apt to have the signals intelligence capability to detect the source of messages. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case would not the solution be that the user ask a registered user in another country to add material for them to the article? After all if a government is that repressive enough and technologically sophisticated they would they trace the anonymous user anyway....said Meg Ireland (talk)

(undent)OK...let's move toward draft text. Do we simply rule "no pseudonyms" for general user accounts?

Journal-style review is a process that we have not yet included, although I think there are good arguments for it, especially during an expert shortage. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Currently we do have this policy and we have a couple of pseudonym users, but the only person with a list is the Chief Constable, I am not aware if any of them are currently active. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)