CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Howard C. Berkowitz

I came to Citizendium in the middle of 2008, with the goal of contributing to accurate knowledge; I like to think I've contributed a bit. First, the Charter has to be a positive statement of Citizendium's unique goals and approaches. These include expert validation, civility, strong knowledge navigation, serious support for Eduzendium, etc. We aren't some other place done better. Expert synthesis and context-setting are a strength of CZ and need to be cherished.

Second, we need accepted community governance, fair but not bureaucratic. To be a part of governance, Citizens need to be active participants. We also need to recognize and encourage active participation, including allowing demonstrated knowledge to be as important as active credentials.

Third, while the Charter cannot be a detailed book of rules, and needs to respect the Statement of Fundamental Principles, things such as neutrality need more clarification, especially with the balance between fringe topics and expert opinion. Editor authority needs better definition, as well as a practical appeals process.

Fourth, we may need to make the Approval process more flexible, so that it doesn't stall due to lack of editors. We may need grades of approval, and we also need the ability to withdraw or reduce approval. The principles of workgroups need to be reexamined based on experience, especially with topics that don't nearly fit defined workgroups.

We need a structure that encourages productive alliances with other knowledge-producing organizations.

I am Secretary of the Editorial Council, an editor in the Computers, Military, and Engineering workgroups, and contribute frequently in Health Sciences, History, Politics, Food Sciences and Visual Arts. As the only active Military Editor at present, I share the frustration of not being able to get articles to Approval.