CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Tom Morris: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
On the issue of Neutrality, I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the Healing Arts Workgroup, as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the Health Sciences editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face.
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. This means shorter articles, with a more rapid approval and re-approval cycle. The CZ Charter needs to define the role or spirit of the approval process rather than narrowly define how that is implemented. I tend to prefer processes where we define what our intentions are up front - the CZ charter ought to describe our principles and intentions - but then allow flexibility and trial-and-error in how those principles are implemented.
imported>Tom Morris (New page: {{CZ:Charter_drafting_committee/Position_statements}} I'm User:Tom Morris/Tom, and I'm just a fairly prolific CZ author who writes about philosophy, computers, politics and whatever t...) |
imported>Tom Morris No edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{CZ:Charter_drafting_committee/Position_statements}} | {{CZ:Charter_drafting_committee/Position_statements}} | ||
I'm [[User:Tom Morris | I'm [[User:Tom Morris|Tom]], and I'm just a fairly prolific CZ author who writes about philosophy, computers, politics and whatever takes my fancy. I'm seeking to work on the Charter drafting committee as a way to give back to the CZ community, and to try to ensure that CZ stays a great place for Citizens and readers to produce something great. | ||
<br /> | |||
<br /> | |||
On the issue of [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality]], I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the [[CZ:Healing Arts Workgroup|Healing Arts Workgroup]], as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the [[CZ:Health Sciences Workgroup|Health Sciences]] editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face. | On the issue of [[CZ:Neutrality Policy|Neutrality]], I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the [[CZ:Healing Arts Workgroup|Healing Arts Workgroup]], as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the [[CZ:Health Sciences Workgroup|Health Sciences]] editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face. | ||
<br /> | |||
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. | <br /> | ||
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. This means shorter articles, with a more rapid approval and re-approval cycle. The CZ Charter needs to define the role or spirit of the approval process rather than narrowly define how that is implemented. I tend to prefer processes where we define what our intentions are up front - the CZ charter ought to describe our principles and intentions - but then allow flexibility and trial-and-error in how those principles are implemented. | |||
Latest revision as of 07:27, 1 October 2009
On the issue of Neutrality, I have no problem with articles expressing a range of views, but I also think that sometimes there are things which are just wrong, and CZ needs to reflect that. I'm not a big fan of the Healing Arts Workgroup, as it seems to allow articles on scientifically dubious topics to avoid the peer review process that the Health Sciences editors would apply. As I've said before, we wouldn't have an Economics workgroup and a 'Monetary Arts' workgroup that operated with fundamentally different assumptions. Quite how workgroups and sub-workgroups are created is a matter I think the Charter committee, and the CZ community generally, will have to face.
I also think that the approval process needs to be much more agile and responsive - and editors more pro-active! - if we are going to start publishing more approved articles. This means shorter articles, with a more rapid approval and re-approval cycle. The CZ Charter needs to define the role or spirit of the approval process rather than narrowly define how that is implemented. I tend to prefer processes where we define what our intentions are up front - the CZ charter ought to describe our principles and intentions - but then allow flexibility and trial-and-error in how those principles are implemented.