CZ Talk:Policy on Topic Informants: Difference between revisions
imported>Daniel Drake (→scope: versus "public figure"in US civil law) |
imported>Hayford Peirce (I agree that "informant" is a terrible term, one that only a university researcher who is barely literate in *real* English could love) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Informant" is the accepted term in human subjects research involving interviews. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:33, 1 March 2007 (CST) | :Informant" is the accepted term in human subjects research involving interviews. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 00:33, 1 March 2007 (CST) | ||
::Even so, I gotta agree with the unnamed person above -- this is a *terrible* term! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT) | |||
==scope== | ==scope== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
or not." .--unless you mean a public figure as anyone who has been the subject of several newspaper stories, or something similarly broad. I would hope ,for example, that we would have articles about all the members of the National Academy of Sciences. We needn't go into their personalities, but what is an encyclopedia for if not discussing scholarly work--whether or not they approve of the discussion. That is why we have real editors.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 00:02, 27 January 2007 (CST) | or not." .--unless you mean a public figure as anyone who has been the subject of several newspaper stories, or something similarly broad. I would hope ,for example, that we would have articles about all the members of the National Academy of Sciences. We needn't go into their personalities, but what is an encyclopedia for if not discussing scholarly work--whether or not they approve of the discussion. That is why we have real editors.[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 00:02, 27 January 2007 (CST) | ||
:There is a "public figure" rule in | :There is a "public figure" rule in U.S. libel law; those unfortunates (kidding -- I think it's good law) who fall into the class have much narrower protection than the random citizen against libel or invasion of privacy. Is the usage in this article the same one? Whatever the relation, it probably should be made explicit. [[User:Daniel Drake|Daniel Drake]] 03:09, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | ||
==Comments== | ==Comments== | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 17 May 2007
I cannot think of a worse name. Informant implies un-named and undercover-- a gangster who is in contact with a law enforcement officer, a member of the government who is in contact with a spy, a person leaking information to a reporter.
This is intended to be just the opposite--an objective analyst. If it is going to be under-cover, don't emphasize in in the name.
- Informant" is the accepted term in human subjects research involving interviews. Stephen Ewen 00:33, 1 March 2007 (CST)
- Even so, I gotta agree with the unnamed person above -- this is a *terrible* term! Hayford Peirce 16:49, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
scope
I agree with almost all of this except "that if you aren't really a public figure, it should be up to you whether we have an article about you or not." .--unless you mean a public figure as anyone who has been the subject of several newspaper stories, or something similarly broad. I would hope ,for example, that we would have articles about all the members of the National Academy of Sciences. We needn't go into their personalities, but what is an encyclopedia for if not discussing scholarly work--whether or not they approve of the discussion. That is why we have real editors.DavidGoodman 00:02, 27 January 2007 (CST)
- There is a "public figure" rule in U.S. libel law; those unfortunates (kidding -- I think it's good law) who fall into the class have much narrower protection than the random citizen against libel or invasion of privacy. Is the usage in this article the same one? Whatever the relation, it probably should be made explicit. Daniel Drake 03:09, 4 April 2007 (CDT)
Comments
"Members will be selected by sortition among volunteers" - COMMENT: is this meaning "volunteers for the Topic Informant Workgroup"?
"Workgroup members will serve yearlong terms" ADD: "that are renewable for up to [number] terms"? (This would better permit both stability and development of expertise).
The Citizendium will then:
- link to these remarks from the relevant article pages
- take these remarks very seriously, and, as appropriate, cite them
Definition of "topic informant." Persons who give interviews or remarks in this fashion are called topic informants. A person is considered a topic informant only if the Citizendium has published his or her remarks, with his or her permission.
COMMENT: Perhaps only those portions of a transcript with relevance to material cited should be published and linked to.
Also, this workgroup must obviously be exempt from no original research while interviewing topic informants.
Stephen Ewen 00:33, 1 March 2007 (CST)