CZ Talk:Policies/Proposed Citizendium Policy Changes 2020
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
"transparently" (8)? I've noticed no link to the discussions giving rise to these proposals, only an invitation to join them. Peter Jackson (talk) 09:49, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- Peter, Thanks for keeping our feet to the fire. I've made no secret of having taken Advisory Panel discussions about how to go forward offline for the time being. Anyone who expresses interest in helping guide the project right now is welcome to join the Advisory Panel, and those calling to shut it down (or too busy) have not joined. I took the panel out of the wiki, for now, because those of us working to shore up operations, repair the neglected software, etc., have limited time and energy, and we've been in something of an emergency situation. This proposal has been looked at by the majority of the Advisory group (more than a dozen people) before being posted here. I came up with these ideas, having worked in Citizendium since its inception, because I want to try some course changes in hopes of making it easier for authors to co-exist in the wiki while not always able to agree on how to approach a given topic.Pat Palmer (talk) 17:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't explained the rationale behind each proposal, but I will if asked. The first thing, I think, is find out how people feel.Pat Palmer (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
- The proposed section 7 is not much better than the present one. It would be better to start with a minimalist position and increase it after that. Since the Advisory Panel was held offline it shouldn't be given the importance you seem to be giving it. Pradyumna Singh (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- For Rule 7 I propose something on the lines of
- 7) All members are equally authors of our articles.
- 7A) To improve the quality of the encyclopedia, we are
- a) Suspending the creation of so-called Citable articles, and allowing reversions of current Citable articles to regular collaboration mode
- b) Encouraging deletion of articles deemed not up to standard
- (note: Remove everything about 7A and the link to it) Pradyumna Singh (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- The proposed section 7 is not much better than the present one. It would be better to start with a minimalist position and increase it after that. Since the Advisory Panel was held offline it shouldn't be given the importance you seem to be giving it. Pradyumna Singh (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
- I haven't explained the rationale behind each proposal, but I will if asked. The first thing, I think, is find out how people feel.Pat Palmer (talk) 17:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)