CZ:Managing Editor/2012/004 - Approval of Editor-authored articles when no appropriate nominating Editors available

Statement of problem

Existing policy regarding article approval does not take into consideration the not uncommon circumstance in which an Editor has predominantly authored an article to a stage ready for consideration of Approval but no other Editor is available to consider nominating it for Approval, owing a dearth of truly active Editors in any of the article’s Workgroup categories.

The question: Until Citizendium grows to the stage when the current dearth of Editors no longer exists, or no longer is of severity to present a serious problem finding appropriate Editors to nominate, or reject the nomination of, articles for approval, should Citizenium allow Editors with established track-records nominate for Approval the articles they predominantly authored, with following provisos:

1. The Approvals Manager judges the Editor's responses to comments from authors-at-large to be satisfactory in terms of edits to the article and to rebuttals to critiques.
2. The Editorial Council concurs with the Approvals Manager's judgment.

Existing applicable policy

Charter

• Article 36

• The Managing Editor has the following duties:

1. to ensure by means of executive decisions that the principles and policies of the Citizendium are effectively and coherently observed; such decisions shall be based on established policy where defined;
2. to make interim decisions on behalf of the Editorial and Management Councils when established policy does not provide guidance; these decisions shall be overridden by the establishment of relevant policy;
3. to represent the Citizendium in its relations with external bodies, such as the mass media, and academic or non-academic institutions.

Decisions by the governing bodies

Editorial Council

From "CZ:Approval process" (http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Approval_Process):

If the editor has worked on it [an article] herself as an author, he/she asks another editor to approve it; or, if there are several editors all doing significant work as authors on the article, then at least three of them can agree to approve it. (These rules are to prevent a single person from approving his or her own work without involving review by experts who were not authors.)

Those rules do not take into consideration the circumstance described above, under "Statement of problem".

Seeking outside reviewers is unsatisfactory at the present time (July 2012) inasmuch as the prestige ranking of Citizendium is not high enough to offer incentives to busy and career-oriented specialists to peer-review articles for Citizendium. In the future, the use of outside reviewers may be a practical option.

The Editorial Council’s regulation, EC:R-2011-027/ Approval process (http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:R-2011-027) likewise does not set policy for the particular circumstance described above, under "Statement of problem".

Draft decision

The text below is what I plan to decide in this case. Feel free to edit the text if you think this improves it. If your edits require discussion, please use the dedicated section below. Editing and discussion in this "Draft decision" section shall stop 24h after my last edit to it.'

Yes. That affirmative decision will enable the Approval Process to accelerate without compromising article quality given the provisos stated that provide safeguards by both the Approval Manager and Editorial Council.

Indeed, quality might improve, as the Editor's reputation is more at stake.

Editors whose articles are being considered, uthors-at-large, may comment on the Talk Page of the article. An Editorial Council member who happens to be an Editor-in-consideration is expected to recuse himself/herself from concurring or not with the Approval Manager's judgment.

It is intended that this decision stay in effect until most Workgoups have adequate numbers of truly active Editors to support the Approval Process, or until overridden by the Editorial Council.

Discussion of Draft decision

When reading or editing this section, please keep in mind that the current version of the draft decision might be different from the one referred to by previous commenters.

This decision does not examine the purpose of "certification", which of course is to make sure that such articles are accurate, complete and well expressed. When there are very few or perhaps no editors at all that can be found to undertake a review, the logical thing to do, and the one most consistent with the objectives of certification, is to shelve this process in any situation where insufficient editors can be found.

The effect of "certification" is to make any revision of an article so cumbersome as to discourage any attempts at improvement. A revision of a certified article requires formal procedure, and where few or no experts are available, resistance to change prevents any improvement beyond fixing of typos. These observations are not hypothetical; examination of past attempts to revise certified articles shows that revisions are very, very difficult already, even where several contributors engage.

To "certify" an article based upon the assumed "track record" of reputable authors without expertise is very ill advised. John R. Brews 14:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

To make a point, I might nominate these articles for certification, all authored by myself, and in most cases on topics where I have no expertise. I am confident that most of them would become certified under the proposed decision. John R. Brews 14:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)