CZ Talk:Charter/Archive 2

This page is dedicated to drafting a charter for Citizendium and should only be edited by those eight Citizens elected to the drafting Committee. The talk page is also reserved for them to discuss the evolution of the document. 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.

This is the final version of the document drafted by the Charter drafting Committee. It shall be subject to a public vote.

To do list

1. Identify our goals for the charter and for Citizendium. Ongoing: see the forum thread
2. Adress the #Open questions
3. Get the draft ready for the open discussion phase.

Done

1. Agree on Committee chairperson: Joe Quick
2. Agree on the basic Structure.

Auxiliary pages

The following subpages of this page have been set up to help the drafting process. The same editing restrictions as to this page apply there.

Brainstorm	Drafting procedures	Scope and structure of the charter	Things to address but not in charter	Definitions	Ecology-Economy	Archives	Editors, authors, and approval	Another subpage

Open questions

Overview

Please discuss these points in the Comments section, and if they have been resolved, strike them out here. You can also add other issues here that you think need to be addressed.

It's worth reviewing the outstanding issues. This is certainly not exhaustive, but we certainly need work in:

• Clearly defining the #audience, including providing for legitimate advanced subjects, and at least having a framework that allows branches or subpages for pre-college levels.

• #Objectivity, neutrality, or whatever we call it -- I think we have some good text, but the issue of expertise vs. egalitarianism is still there.

• Assuming we have "interim guidance" (cf. #locking policy pages), a minimal framework for reliability marking, probably broadening beyond approval.

• The idea of internal workspaces (cf. #Warmspace) not exposed to the general public, for collaborative improvement of things not ready for prime time

• Dispute resolution (cf. #Judicial process) is, I think, fairly close to being done in concept but not clear enough

• Duties and election of the #Management Committee, including the corporate/legal officer needs.

Comments on Charter draft text

Real names section

second sentence is too detailed for charter. third sentence needs to be slightly revised to be more general.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

What about this? --Daniel Mietchen 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I slightly changed your amendment.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not enamored with the exceptions. Russell D. Jones 14:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Nor am I. Probably, we need to specify why exceptions can be made, and who/what will decide. I am not sure that the official accounts need to appear in the Charter, though. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the exceptions. --Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, but as far as I know there have been a few legitimate exceptions. They need to be allowed for, by some procedure (e.g. special application to the Chief Constable). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have the interim guidance section on pseudonyms. See also here. --Daniel Mietchen 01:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Resolved: no need for pseudonyms, at least from CZ experiences. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ratification of this charter

To me, this is not a subheading under "Electorate", but at the same level. --Daniel Mietchen 22:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judicial process

I made some changes here, trying to be more absolute.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Professionalism

Some major changes here in the last sentence. I tried to make it simultanously universal yet with some flexibility. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Workgroups

The only statement about workgroups is that the Editorial Council shall have power to establish a workgroup policy. When workgroup policy needs to change, you're going to have to amend the charter which (rightly) should be a lot harder than changing an ed council policy. Russell D. Jones 14:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, for the pragmatic reason that the workgroup system is floundering and it would take at least three months to get a new EC started on the problem. This is an example of what I consider "interim guidance", which is designated as changeable by the appropriate body, not requiring a Charter amendment, but usable in the meantime. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Author

An author is any account. This current definition posits a whole class of people who have accounts but are denied the rights and privileges of authors. Russell D. Jones 15:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be the case. Presumably the idea is to cast inactive authors as non-authors, but this is not a good idea. Is there a need to define an author as someone who has written something on CZ, leaving as Citizens those who have not? Normally, a Citizen in any state system has full legal rights. Therefore, it would make more sense to say that only those who write or edit are citizens, but this also is not a good idea... I suggest deleting this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the distinction between Author and Citizen. --Daniel Mietchen 21:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Mission statement

If the current version is to be replaced by some variant of what is being discussed on the forum, we should not forget to introduce the term Citizen on its first mention. --Daniel Mietchen 16:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just rephrased the mission statement and added the definitino of Citizens to its first mention, in the Professionalism section. --Daniel Mietchen 22:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Being Bold

I agree with the statement "A basic Professionalism rule, however, is that large deletions or revisions, or renaming pages other than for clear errors, should not be made without a reasonable attempt to get consensus on the Talk Page." but do not think it should go into (this section of) the charter. --Daniel Mietchen 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It might be an example of "interim guidance". Where should it go? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I put it into Collaboration now. --Daniel Mietchen 21:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I made some revisions to the last version of Being Bold, trying to make it a little more certain for authors. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked over the current version of the whole document (except to skim it), so don't take this as my last or only word on the document. It's just a quick in-and-out comment. But I did notice this as a gloss on "be bold": "Should Citizens be unsure that their planned contributions are in conformity with the Charter and its subordinate policies, they are advised to seek comments from Editors and the wider community. In the absence of disputes, they may reasonably proceed." How on Earth does that encapsulate "be bold"? Someone who follows that rule is being the opposite of bold. It seems to me that whoever wrote that does not actually agree with the meaning of "be bold," and if you don't agree with it, you should be advocating getting rid of it as a policy instead of trying to rewrite it in a way that basically jettisons it as a policy. The notion--which I came up with for Wikipedia--is that people unfamiliar with the system should not concern themselves too much about breaking often complex or arcane-seeming rules, or doing "wrong" things generally, but just proceed indeed boldly on the assumption that as long as they are acting in good faith, they are probably "within the law." The reason for the policy in the first place was that some people were very worried about doing something wrong and so wouldn't do anything. That has been, I think, even more a problem on CZ than it was in the early days of Wikipedia. The function of saying "be bold" is simply to embolden people who are reticent and strongly desirous not to give offense, and who think they have to master all the rules before they do anything. Asking them to get advice (from editors first and foremost, no less!) before they proceed is precisely to ask them not to be bold, but instead to subordinate themselves to the know-it-all regulars. --Larry Sanger 16:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I also had some thoughts along those lines. I didn't write the original text (I merely improved the English)but I suppose that the idea implicitly was that the default way of being should Be Bold, and if you have any doubts, here is a way to remove those doubts. I agree with Larry that the unconscious message reads somehow differently, and we need to rethink this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is one of CZ's problems. Let's just leave it as -- Be Bold! If there is a problem with something that you have written, somebidy will surely come along and fix it! D. Matt Innis 20:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity

I oppose the existence of this section and also the use of the word. I recommend the idea of inclusiveness as an alternative to neutrality, which also has been problematic.Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Since we are supposed to agree on the draft presented for the discussion period, I have removed the section and paste it in here:

===Objectivity===

Information presented objectively is based on careful, unbiased and documented observation. When conflicting information exists, enough background must be given that the reader can understand the merits and weaknesses of the major alternatives. The Citizendium is not a place for advocacy, nor for advertisement.

--Daniel Mietchen 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let's try to draft an alternative here. The starting point must be the title. Suggestions? I'll offer "Non-partisan, inclusive knowledge" Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin, what do you mean by "inclusive knowledge?" D. Matt Innis 01:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I mean that it takes an holistic view, encompassing different perspectives, paradigms,premisses etc. Much as the Neutrality Policy also requires (but trying to avoid the word neutrality). Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So are we saying that articles should "include" all perspectives, but not require them to be presented "neutrally". Is that the reason to avoid use of the word "Neutrality"? What kind of consequences do you expect that to have? D. Matt Innis 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No. But neutral has the same problems as objective, namely that they don't exist. Non-partisan is my version of neutral. We might also include other descriptors, such as "balanced", "fair representation of competing views", etc., Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe, rather intensely, that the Charter has to make clear that "balanced" or whatever word is selected does not mean all views are required to be present, or, if present, to be given equal emphasis. The point about CZ not being a place of advocacy, I hope, is not objectionable; advocacy is inherently partisan. One can always rely on the Nazis for a worst-case example; I don't believe there is a requirement to give equal space to the facts of adjudicated crimes against humanity, and the justification for them. Someday, I hope to take Mein Kampf out of cold storage for a reasonable analysis, but do not expect it to be "sympathetic" to Adolf. Accurate, yes. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we need something to guide how competing views should be presented. Maybe, "providing clear guidance on the extent of scientific and popular support". Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think on average, we are all inclusionists when it comes to our author instincts, but as editors we tend to be restrictionist. Some of this is necessary, but at times crosses the line into advocacy by deletion of opposing views. This is complicated... too complicated for us eight to take the responsibility for. The concepts need to be effectively debated and settled, but not in this venue. Here we are just supposed to be creating the Charter that will guide future discussions. We should just state that Citizendium will abide by such and such policy and then determine that such and such policy can be changed by 2/3 vote of some quorum. D. Matt Innis 03:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmm. Reminds me of the definition of pornography.. I'll recognize it when I see it.. What I think is important is that we don't allow biased, emotionally driven but effectively hidden, descriptions of competing views. The dictionary definition of "objective" does seem to satisfy this for me -- as does neutral, but what is it that these don't satisfy for you? In other words, why should we try to leave out Neutral for something just as vague? I'm willing to consider anything that would seem like an improvement, but I haven't really heard it, yet. D. Matt Innis 03:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, neutral implies that you don't make any judgements at all. This is far from being non-partisan, in that I might not support a Socialist position versus a Conservative position, but presumably I want at least to hint that a Neo-Nazi position is not something that CZ endorses, even if it does mention its existence. I also want to indicate that support for Neo-Nazi ideas is generally very small, with occasional local exceptions. Neutrality Policy does not permit this, at least in its formulation. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 03:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I disagree. I don't think Citizendium has time to keep putting this off to future forums, which can't realistically be in operation for another three months. I think it's entirely reasonable to have what I've called "interim guidance", which is the best consensus of the Charter drafters, but can be changed by the Editorial Council rather than requiring full Charter amendment. This particular issue is one that, in my opinion, is likeliest to lead to the death of Citizendium unless a stand is taken.

Which issue is going to lead to the death of Citizendium? D. Matt Innis 03:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality policy that overrides expertise, and requires presentation of fringe views. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Experts are the originators of "fringe" views. Neutrality just requires that we express each "expert" view as accurately as we can. D. Matt Innis 03:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In a word, nonsense, as in the Nazi justifications. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Martin, yes, I think guidance on competing views is important. Now, I can speak with a certain degree of expertise on different views within the original NDSAP, much less neo-Nazis. For example, in discussing the Holocaust, it is appropriate to explain the economic exploitation view of the WVHA versus the "security" killing mentality of the RSHA. I don't need, however, to describe either sympathetically or suggest that CZ considers them reasonable views. The closest to "sympathy", required under existing Fundamental Principle Neutrality Policy I can get is observing the regret, in the death sentence of Otto Ohlendorf, that the judges had -- that he had not made different decisions with his agreed great abilities. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the distinction is that CZ shouldn't consider anything a "reasonable" view. It just states what the view was. The reader decides if it is a reasonable view. D. Matt Innis 03:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Maybe the important thing that is missing is that one editor shouldn't be deciding anything on his/her own. D. Matt Innis 04:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why not? An author says that chiropractic manipulation causes gonorrhea. Do you need three editors to reject that statement? Sorry, I will not agree to the idea that an editor, if qualified, can't make decisions. That utterly destroys the idea of respect for expertise, and I won't stay under such a rule.Howard C. Berkowitz 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, expertise, as decided in editor qualification, should assume that some views predominate. I shall not, for example, agree that the WHVA or RSHA views, the proponents of both being hung by the neck until dead by order of the Nuremberg Military Tribunals or International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), were reasonable. Both held a position that there was "life unworthy of life" (a doctrinal statement), but one believed in getting as much economic value as possible out of those useless lives before they died.

If only for myself, I'd like a firm position taken on these fundamental principles. If experts aren't to give expert judgments, I'd like to know, if only for myself, so I can leave without prolonging the agony. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict - I'll read your response after I put this back in) Well, as long as the chiropractor uses protection, everyone should be okay -- though they don't use antibiotics! :)

But what about the homeopath that takes out the statement that Howard puts in that says that remedies are 100% water. In this case there were other editors there to revert those actions. Of course, any appeal process would probably include more than one editor anyway, too.

Where are you going?

D. Matt Innis 04:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Leave Citizendium, and other online resource that has a Seinfeld sort of view that there are no positions worthy of being considered substantially correct. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I consider it crucial that the content gives particular weight to existing expert opinions, without the requirement to represent all views on a topic. --Daniel Mietchen 07:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't actually have a problem with stating a wide range of views, since an encyclopedia should do that. Nor do I have a problem with trying to state each of those views accurately, since academics are supposed to do that (and often fail). My problems are with the concepts of "objectivity" and "neutrality". The first because it simply does not exist; the second because it implies that we give equal and uncritical presentation of all opinions, even cranky nonsenses supported by 0.0001% of the population. This latter is not encyclopedic and impedes the presentation of serious scientific articles, if taken at face value.

There is a lot of opposition to the existence and wording of Neutrality Policy on CZ. Read the Forums. Note the previous editorial arguments and departures. Therefore, the Charter has to address this issue in principle. Again, I suggest the concept of "inclusiveness" while making clear to the reader which are the accepted mainstream positions. This is normal encyclopedia writing, and almost everyone on CZ wants that to prevail, as far as I know. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that "careful, unbiased and documented observation" (as stated in that deleted paragraph) is indeed possible and happens on a daily basis in many labs around the globe, but I agree that this is not necessarily what people (inside or outside CZ) would associate with the term "objectivity". So, in a sense, I understand that you are looking for a new title (what about "No prejudices"?), but I do not understand why the rest of that section would not fit. --Daniel Mietchen 12:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My view, Daniel, is that the wording you selected previously is generally (but not always) appropriate for natural science. Observations in the social world are frequently biased and/or wrong; observations in history require interpretations. So, for a universal understanding of the underlying philosophy of CZ we need some explanation of how to deal with theories, concepts, ideologies, marginal viewpoints, religious beliefs, etc. This is extremely difficult. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 13:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Joe's suggestion (per email) that we might take objectivity as a goal and, while being conscious of it not being universally attainable, strive to approach it asymptotically to the best of our means. --Daniel Mietchen 14:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the discussion here; sorry for my out-of-context, out-of-the-loop email. In short, I don't think we're going to be able to come up with a word or a policy that actually defines exactly what Citizendium will become. Thus, it is worth aiming for an ideal, even if we must acknowledge that it is merely an ideal. I think Objectivity is a worthy ideal. It should be complemented by a few others: accuracy; fair, unbiased representation; and inclusiveness. --Joe Quick 15:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How about "holistic coverage"? I agree that objectivity is a sort of ideal but I fear it will be heavily criticised as a word or concept. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, holistic is good. I've suggested that word time and time again and have been repeatedly ignored or criticized for it. I doubt it is much better than objectivity in that way, but it is another important aspect. --Joe Quick 15:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

How's this for a formulation that encompasses the ideal and the practical: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects holistically and objectively to the greatest degree possible. In practice, this means that articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias." --Joe Quick 15:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Matt makes an interesting point in the Forum: that "neutrality" is one of several known attributes of CZ, so we should retain the word but carefully define it. I suspect that I personally will be happy with no single word, so provided that it is properly defined and unambiguous, I would not oppose retaining the actual word "neutrality" simply for continuity. This would mean that the definition needs to be absolutely spot-on. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC) And yes, your definition is not bad at all, Joe. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 15:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The second entry at reference.com seems about right. It gives neutral as: "not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy." I think the second definition of objective as an adjective is closer to what we really want: "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased." Actually, they're just different enough that we might consider using both, so long as they are clearly defined. I also forgot above to include, "Citizendium is not a place for advocacy, nor for advertisement," which I think is really good. --Joe Quick 16:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So here's my next take: "All entries at Citizendium should engage their subjects holistically, neutrally and objectively to the greatest degree possible. The holistic approach to article writing entails representing each topic as a complex whole rather than a simple conglomeration of its parts; a good Citizendium article will explain all facets of its subject, including all significant points of view, applications, and connections to other topics. It will also be neutral, which means it will not align with any one position if there is controversy surrounding some aspect of the article's topic. Instead, it will remain objective, describing each relevant position without skewing the narrative toward the personal beliefs or positions of the author(s). In short, articles should present the big picture, including all relevant perspectives, and should be written carefully and without bias. Citizendium is not a place for advocacy or for advertisement." --Joe Quick 16:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There's progress here, as long as we have a clear understanding of irrelevant perspectives. Let me try an example of an approach: in the main Holocaust article, there should be only a brief mention that there are some that deny the Holocaust happened, a point where the great mass of opinion and evidence disagrees. See Holocaust denial for a discussion of the social and ideological factors that motivate this argument. Holocaust denial could be a stub, but the point is that it is not argued as a relevant view in the main article. In some cases, a sidebar might even be appropriate, if the topic adds flavor, such as Green cheese in an article on Lunar geology (selenology). (what cheeses are green, anyway? Sap Sago, vaguely...) Howard C. Berkowitz 17:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reason that Holocaust Denial is irrelevant (other than to note its existence and some notorious cases) is that their evidence for it is zero. It is a view that can be briefly mentioned (and it would be erroneous to omit it) but the actual coverage given to it in the article will be minimal according to Joe's definition above. On the other hand, an article on Holocaust Denial would be in order, because it is a political phenomenon and interesting in itself, although I don't think I would wish to explain their beliefs "sympathetically" as current policy advocates. I am happy with the latest definition, I think. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It appears we are in fundamental agreement on the principles, but I'm not convinced we are saying clearly enough that a view with little or no support is irrelevant to the main article, and that it may be worthy of coverage as a social phenomenon. I suppose it would be sympathetic simply to comment that Fred Leuchter's knowledge of science was gained from children's television, but I'd really like to banish the concepts of "writing for the enemy" and "sympathetic". The closest I come is, perhaps, to note the classic tragedy, indeed sometimes noted in a death sentence, of how a bureaucratic mass murderer such as Ohlendorf both believed he was being pure to an ideology, even fighting for purity inside the Third Reich, and all agreed was an immensely talented man who could have, instead, done great good. Even he agreed that he needed to hang. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Concerning Joe's last configuration: I've thought about it off and on all day.. It is very good, I think.

As a head's up, though, I do have to mentiion that the word "holistic" is a loaded term for healthcare. In some medical circles it is a "bad word" because it has connotations of alternative medicine from the 1970s... having said that, I think it is a great word and a good concept for writing.

We have included the word "neutrally", but I wonder if we shouldn't keep this closer to "neutrality" for the "brand" effect that we all love and appreciate so much...

As for Howard's point about "irrelevent perspectives", I think each really has to be managed on a case by case basis at the lower levels. How much research is enough to qualify as a scientific endeavor? How many scientists have to agree that it is psedoscience? Is it fringe or is it cutting edge? Is the reed a musical instrument? Is yoga healthcare? Is prayer alternative medicine? Should prayer be used in the treatments for cancer article? I would have no problem with hearing arguments in the history workgroup concerning how much to include holocaust denial in any history article. I would expect that those editors can make the right decision. I don't know enough about it to decide that here. So, if we do anything about "irrelevant perspectives here on the charter, it should be to refer them to their individual workgroups. D. Matt Innis 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We may be making progress. Irrelevancy is appropriately determined by people familiar with the topic. Now, that does lead to two potential problems:

• What if the Workgroup has a low population, especially if there's one active Editor?
• Editors need to be empowered to make such calls, rather than (it feels) constantly being told to get more Editors involved -- when there aren't any. I would have no problem, in a one (or few) editor workgroup, putting the question to the mailing list or workgroup page, but, to avoid endless edit wars, the relevant Editor or Editors have to be supported when decisions are made. Yes, there may be appeals, but if we do a reasonable job in selecting Editors, the majority of appeals will go against the appellant. For the EC to overturn a ruling, the matter has to be compelling to nonspecialists.

In some respects, saying "let the workgroup decide" is specifically going against what I call the hyper-egalitarian, and insisting on "sympathy" and presentation of all views of whatever relevance.

Neutrality, I believe, is a WP brand; it's just a restatement of the abbreviation NPOV, which we forbid. Going to a new word is classic rebranding strategy, especially when the existing brand is not distinctive. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll float this idea ...suppose we were to structure the workgroups in such a way that a hierarchy exists that grouped similar workgroups together so that no less than three active editors were available from that subset of workgroups at any one time. In fact, we might not allow a new workgroup to form until there are at least three available editors. You get the idea... it would allow for the same rules to apply even as we grew. Of course, we put this under the control of the EC. It satisfies Russell and Larry's earlier concerns that our structure is too big to fill the positions. This way all the positions are filled from day one and allow for growth.. and satisfy your concern and my concern about one editor making a decision. D. Matt Innis 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, but why should this get into the Charter? The EC has the power to organise this. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it should be part of the charter - other than to set the stage for the EC to do this, but we have to have a big picture to get this piece finished. When we're all on the same page, we are invincible. :-) D. Matt Innis 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This should probably move under "Workgroups"

If we agree that it's reasonable, it's the sort of thing that I've been calling "interim guidance", which can go either into the Charter or a supporting document that can be changed by the EC without a charter amendment. Putting out such ideas lets us have needed structure in the 3-4 months it would take for the EC to decide.

That being said, some Editors are reluctant to go outside their specialty within an existing group. For example, I've been told, by Politics Editors, that they are uncomfortable doing International Relations/Politics. My own feeling is that experienced researchers can do an interim job, but it depends on the individual. I would be comfortable, for example, doing at least interim coverage, and perhaps later specialist or reorganized Editor, in Health Sciences, Politics and Journalism, all areas in which I have professional experience. I still would like to find someone willing to take on interim Military. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Amending the Charter

Did I miss some discussion on how to do this? The current formulation looks highly problematic and over-prescriptive for the future, to me. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 00:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There probably was no real discussion, just the need to have the section and to phrase it out. Please make it better. --Daniel Mietchen 01:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll try another formulation, and see how people feel. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on this..

The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter. D. Matt Innis 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit vague, although the Charter should not be too detailed either. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with "purposely vague", but don't have any idea what it means. I can see "conflict of interest with respect to this charter"? Am I missing something that someone wants to make sure we don't do? D. Matt Innis 02:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: I don't know what the drafter had in mind here. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll wait to see if anyone meant something specific by it. D. Matt Innis 02:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I meant that the partnership would have to ensure that Citizens are not required to do anything in conflict with the principles laid out in the charter. This is to avoid partnerships leading us into problems with advocacy, advertisement, or similar. --Daniel Mietchen 07:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration

I think we should delete the second sentence under the collaboration section as too detailed for a charter:

Current:

• The Citizendium is a collaborative project, open to constructive contributions by any Citizen on any of its content. However, large deletions or revisions, or renaming pages other than for clear errors, should not be made without a reasonable attempt to get other opinions. The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter.

Suggested as an improvement with expectation of further input:

• The Citizendium is a collaborative project, open to constructive contributions by any Citizen to any of its content. There will be no anonymous editing of publicly viewed content. All unapproved articles are open for editing by any Citizen at any time and immediately becomes property of the Citizendium. The Citizendium also welcomes collaboration with external non-Citizen partners on any matters relevant to the project's mission, provided that the interaction does not lead participating Citizens to a conflict of interest with respect to this Charter.

D. Matt Innis 02:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the above changes, but have some minor concerned about the last sentence still. D. Matt Innis 13:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made some modifications and took out two sentences (pasted here) which I think do not fit into this section:

"There will be no anonymous editing of publicly displayed content. All unapproved articles are open for editing by any Citizen and immediately becomes property of the Citizendium."

The first sentence is already covered by the Real Names sentence, while the second is grammatically incorrected and mingles collaborative aspects (already covered in the initial sentence of that section, which I left in) with license aspects, covered in their own section. --Daniel Mietchen 13:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit comments

Please do not make any edit comments of substance or opinion, which are then lost to the record unless one goes to logs. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean on the Charter page? Because we have all been doing that with our edits on the Charter page... Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I think going through the history is actually instructive with these comments, much less so without them. --Daniel Mietchen 16:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of this page, and that if a comment is useful, it should be in the text; the date on the signature accomplishes all that the history does but is far more readable. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Cross references

I added two cross references within the Charter -- to "Author" and "Dispute resolution". Martin Baldwin-Edwards 11:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Professionalism

Let's drop the word "polite" from the section. D. Matt Innis 13:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 14:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Being southern American, I'm pretty sure my definition of polite is different than anyone else's. As an editor, sometimes short and curt is necessary, which some might not consider polite. That opens the door for a whole behavior issue of whether some editor was polite. CZ:Professionalism is hard enough to enforce already. D. Matt Innis 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was prepared for the spectrum from "The War to Free the Slaves" to the "War of Yankee Imperialism", but was not prepared for the docent in the Museum of the Confederacy (Richmond) who referred to the "Late Unpleasantness Between the States". Something about "without personal attacks"? Howard C. Berkowitz 17:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As a generally polite British, I do not recall any occasion when you were less than polite, Matt. I agree that words have different meanings across cultures, and even between persons, but I don't forsee any disputes over what is polite and what is not. Am I being naive, here? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 17:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Consider the "polite" condescension of Dr. Cohen, for example, or He Who Shall Not Be Named who would dismiss any dispute with references to "scholars", implying the disputant was not.

I cannot help but share one of the more elegant expressions of distaste from a British admiral, where his American counterparts might be more blunt. A destroyer captain, knowing the admiral's eyes were upon him, decided to dock at high speed, showing mastery of shiphandling. Unfortunately, he misjudged, and embedded 20 feet of his bow in the wooden dock.

From the flagship came a one-word message, "Good." The captain was a bit puzzled.

Ten minutes later, the flagship signaled, "To previous message, please append the word 'God'". Howard C. Berkowitz 18:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Well, not pertaining to the anecdote, an injunction to be polite does not exclude the possibilities of fraudulent politeness and perfunctory politeness -- both of which may be found to excess in my country of origin. Nevertheless, it is understood that such persons are behaving incorrectly, and relying on superficial verbal form to conceal underlying intent. The injunction retains its validity. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 18:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Then should the professionalism policy be "no personal attacks", whether couched in profanity or fraudulent politeness? It would be nice if the Constabulary, however, could retain the truly magnificent response, as in:

• Earl of Sandwich: "'pon my word, Wilkes, I don't know if you will die on the gallows or of a loathsome disease."
• John Wilkes: "That depends, m'Lord, if I embrace your principles or your mistresses."

(U.S. equivalent available on request) Howard C. Berkowitz 19:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, we have civil and the civil template. To me, politeness is slightly more congenial than civil. Some experts, by nature, are quite abrasive - and somtimes perhaps rude. Authors that feel they aren't being heard tend to rage about editor bias. None of these are polite, but if done properly, can remain within professionalism and civility. Trying to regulate politeness seems like something I tried (and likey failed) to do with my children. D. Matt Innis 19:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I propose substituting "civil" for polite. I hadn't imagined trying to regulate politeness, but as we have already used civil for some time let's keep to it. I will change the draft now, and wait for any arguments:-) Martin Baldwin-Edwards 20:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deal, no argument from me.. though could you imagine if we all had to be polite! It would be so nice to come to work! :) D. Matt Innis 20:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Civil works. Admittedly, when I was a civil servant, I attempted to be civil, but not servile.

Of course, suh, they were also polite on the Field of Honor. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

locking policy pages

We should state that policy pages and the policies themselves are locked once they have been confirmed by the responsible bodies, right? Perhaps as part of the interim suggestions, we should make it clear that the governing bodies need to evaluate existing policies, modify those that need adjustments, and the lock them. --Joe Quick 15:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Since our "bodies" aren't yet fully active, we should lock them as they are now and instruct which bodies have the power to amend them and under what circumstances. Once we have finished the process of creating the Charter, those bodies can then move to amend the policies that they are responsible for, i.e. neutrality policy, professionalism policy, etc.. D. Matt Innis 16:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Editorial Council

As pointed out in the Forum, the vagueness of the previous wording allocated no definite seats to Authors. I have now specified numbers -- 8 editors, 5 authors. We need to decide on the ratio, but I think a clear majority of editors is needed on the editorial council because of the nature of its work.

Also, I amended the term of office from 2 years re-electable to re-electable once consecutively. This provision should also probably be adopted in the Management Committee, if people agree with it.

On a separate point, it is evident from past functioning that we need (a) elected senior personnel to make things happen; and (b) some rules of procedure. Is there any reason that we are not continuing the Chair and Secretary roles? What about Council Resolutions? We already have quite a few of those, and the process worked quite well until recently. Comments and suggestions are needed! I am also not sure about the need for this representation of the EC, by a Management Lead. What is this person supposed to do? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 01:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Vice Chair and Chair make more sense than Secretary and Chair, since one of the specific needs is having someone to act in the absence of the primary. Beyond resolutions, both Councils need to be enabled to discuss strategy and objectives.

The Management Lead (and other Management) will need to be able to execute contracts on behalf of CZ, to make official statements not concerned with content, and to chair the MC.

I disagree with term limits in an organization such as this. In other volunteer organizations, when we found someone very good in a job, it tended to be that they would become tired, rather than needing to be forced from office--but they still needed to be reelectd. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't allow this Management lead to tell some external interest that he cannot comment because it is content related. D. Matt Innis 02:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with term limits.

I'm okay with either Chair and Secretary or Chair and Vice Chair. D. Matt Innis 02:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Are we sure that something called the Editorial Council should not be made of all editors. If it is going to be the only body, then why limit either editors or authors? Just wondering. D. Matt Innis 02:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep the Council Resolution system and allow the EC to make it a simpler process if necessary. All Citizenss need to be able to make proposals and vote on them, too? D. Matt Innis 02:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No, the Management Lead can comment on content, or can designate a content person to do so. It is wise,however, that there is a central point for public relations.

The Editorial Council will not be the only body. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

audience

Peter's comment in the forums about audience merits some attention. I have mixed feelings about the "high-school educated" audience level that was established for Citizendium at its outset. On the one hand, we need to be clear about who our target audience should be so that we can produce appropriate material. In general, the typical beginning college student (which is the original formulation, I think) or non-students with a similar level of education are as good a target as any if we want to produce a general reference resource. On the other hand, it actually does limit us somewhat. We should be clear that some topics require more specialized training to fully understand.

Howard suggests that top-level articles should be accessible to the general public while others might have prerequisites listed somewhere. That's a good place to start, but I think we need a more general strategy in the charter. There's no reason that any article would have to be written below the level of the general public, so we can use that as a baseline. We want to be maximally accessible, after all. It almost certainly is not possible to write about all topics in a way that the general public is able to understand; we must acknowledge that somehow and allow articles that are written at a higher level. However, we should not allow loopholes for people who simply don't want to write for the general public to hijack an article. We need a balance.

"Advanced level" subpages might be a solution but this is too specific for the charter. Without being too vague, we need a formulation that allows the project to host advanced material but still encourage all content to be maximally accessible. --Joe Quick 15:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a legitimate concern without a simple answer. I do think it's an argument, which indeed might be in the charter, for "structuring" including the idea of knowledge hierarchies, but not specifying how the hierarchy is established.

As far as "hijacking", I have mixed feelings. There's one reasonably prolific author that tends to write initial articles that are somewhat more than an annotated journal bibliography, but lacking context. On the other hand, even though there isn't interactive collaboration, I've been able to fill in a fair bit of context, and perhaps make some of it accessible to an undergraduate. One of the things that differentiate these articles from what I've called a "data dump" is the references are generally pertinent, at least if one understands the topic. Perhaps we need to say something about encouraging collaboration when an author is, for whatever reason, not comfortable with putting the "scaffolding" around the key but complex details. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Management Committee

It is currently meant to appoint and oversee Constables, but allows Constables to be a member. Is this reasonable? --Daniel Mietchen 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Warmspace

The idea has been floating around for a while to have a friendly and collaborative alternative to CZ:Cold Storage. Do we need to include this point in the Charter? I think not, but it may go into the interim guidelines if we agree on its usefulness (I doubt it). --Daniel Mietchen 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)