CZ Talk:Ombudsman Guidelines

Pragmatism and leniency

• In some cases, the exercise of pragmatism and leniency has been stretched to a degree which conflicts with the expectation that the project shall operate a culture of mutual respect, tolerance and civility. We cannot allow bullying behaviour to continue on the project, and the constables have the clear authority to stop that, by banning persistent offenders.

I hear you. I agree that this is the unintended side effect of leniency and I will tighten it up. D. Matt Innis 13:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I will be discussing this within the EC. Suffice it to say that I am alarmed that there is increasing resistance to the idea of "loyal opposition", a sine qua non of democracy. I am alarmed by the idea of an ostensible mediator being proactive in promulgating a view of conduct; mediators, in my experience, address matters neutrally and generally on a case-by-case basis. Mediators and arbitrators, in certain areas, may refer to precedent in matters already heard, but presenting a vision is inconsistent with, at least, a governmental or business view of mediation. Perhaps this is a practice in academia.

Do be aware that Authors, as well as Editors, may bully. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All of the Ombudsman's activities must be guided by the established rules of the project and the Charter. Yes I'm a mediator and arbitrator in academia also, and there too, unsurprisingly, all resolutions must be consistent with rules and codes of practice. I'm not neutral on those; I'm on the side of the Charter and rules. We can't make up rules as we go along, they're the framework within which, and by which, all disputes are resolved. Yes, people can bully on articles where they are acting as authors also, and yes this is equally unacceptable under the Charter. I have no problem with a loyal opposition, and no problem with dealing fairly by the rules with people who happen to disagree with me, and no problem with following rules that I don't particularly agree with. If the MC and EC want to change the rules, or qualify them in ways that while within the Charter are different to my current interpretation, then so be it. A loyal opposition is one that observes the rules despite disagreeing with them.Gareth Leng 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

In about 30 seconds I am going to start a motion in the EC that will add some of Gareth's language to our existing motion about Editor qualifications, just to make it crystal clear AND to have it down in writing as a Rule/Regulation passed by the EC. Hayford Peirce 18:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now introduced a new motion at: http://ec.citizendium.org/wiki/EC:2011-015/Editor's_role_and_qualifications,_amplified, incorporating, with slight modifications, some of Gareth's text. Hayford Peirce 18:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

On pragmatism and leniency, I think the important point is to try to be consistent across different conflict settings, which is a challenge.

On the new motion: CZ:Editor, as cited at the present version, defers some authority (e.g. on matters of style) to workgroups, which I think is appropriate in principle but not practical now that workgroups are non-functional. As long as the revised motion does not address the division of competences in a practical manner, I do not see how it could represent an improvement over existing policy. --Daniel Mietchen 02:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the proposal is a reiteration of existing policy as expressed in CZ:Editor. If it is rejected it seems to me that it would be a rejection of CZ:Editor, requiring that to be rewritten. On matters of style and presentation, existing policy is that all contributors have an equal voice except in defined areas subject to ruling by the workgroups. This seems to be central to the original concept of Citizendium, that editors and authors work together as equals but deferring to the technical expertise of editors in technical matters. To move away from this is to assert that editors are the arbitors of communication skills - and this is not something in which they necessarily are expert (except in communicating with their peers). To move away from this is to diminish the role of authors in constructing articles, and to discount any voice of the "reader" - authors here are after all the representatives of the broad class of readers and they are perhaps far better able to judge how effectively an article communicates with its audience than editors. What is certain is that existing policy must be either reiterated or changed. The role of the Ombudsman is impossible to fulfil otherwise, no dispute resolution is possible if there is ambiguity about the rules that govern the dispute, except by resolving that ambiguity in the process of resolution: that would lead the Ombudsman to setting the rules for the project, and that I want to avoid. I follow the rules, I don't make them; for all of us, knowing the rules is essential as they determine whether we wish to be part of the project. The proposal, on my reading does not inhibit editors from commenting on style and presentation, it merely gives authors an equal voice in issues that are not strictly within an editor's technical expertise.Gareth Leng 13:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

{unindent} Here is a key sentence from this proposal: Moreover, in order to be able to act responsibly, Editors must know the limits of their competence and be willing to respect them. Based on this sentence, which I support, there needs to be a clear definition between work group Editors as it seems the area is blended. Also, expertise should be defined based on academic and professional experience. The article I wrote about NDEs clearly belonged in the health science work group, and was open to review by any medical doctor at Citizendium; yet none offered their expertise. Fortunately, Gareth, who is an experienced biology professor stepped up and provided editorial guidance. His guidance was appropriate as the article fell within the area of his expertise. I won't write any more except to state there needs to be a clear definition of editorial roles, and a process in place to make sure the editors are qualified. Finally, there needs to a process to halt potentially "out-of-control" Editors who feel they are experts at most everything. Most of all you need to design a system that allows both Authors and Editors to work together to reach the desired outcome: a well written article. Mary Ash 02:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)