Forum Talk:Governance/Archive 3

From Citizendium
Revision as of 07:41, 15 March 2022 by John Stephenson (talk | contribs) (Protected "Forum Talk:Governance/Archive 3" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Help system All recent posts Back to top Contact Administrators Archives

Governance issues

Discussion about issues regarding or specifically affecting how the project, its policies or any official positions work

Pages: ContentGovernance and PolicyStyleManagementTechnical IssuesRequests for HelpCompetitors and PressArchived Boards

Archived previous discussions just now

You can find the previous discussions in the 2nd archive (see box to upper right). In the meantime, what this wiki has become is described briefly at CZ:Introduction_to_CZ_for_Wikipedians#Why Citizendium?, which is linked also on the landing page.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Citizendium ownership change

Hi all,

A few different people have reached out to me recently about future directions with Citizendium. I appreciate that.

As you know, Citizendium stopped being "my" project a long time ago. But until this morning, I still owned the domain name.

This morning, I transferred ownership of all the Citizendium domain names to Pat Palmer, whom I know and trust and have worked with since the early days of Citizendium. She is not just a former computer science professor at Penn and a highly-sought-after computer consultant, she understands what has worked—and what hasn't worked—both with Wikipedia and the experiment that has been Citizendium. She knows all the old Citizendium folks well. She has a diplomatic and highly intelligent head on her shoulders. Maybe most importantly, she is highly motivated not to let CZ die. And from what I heard, she has sound, practical ideas about how to reinvigorate this project. If I can help that happen by getting out of the way, then I'm happy to do that.

We're not ready to make any big public announcements about this, but I wanted you on this group to know about this change of ownership. Pat will be the new legal owner of Citizendium as soon as the transfer is complete, and she has my support as this project's leader, as we make some important improvements.

--Larry Sanger (talk) 17:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have copied Larry's statement (above) from it's original location at Forum_Talk:Technical_Issues because it seems really to belong here, in Governance. But he made it there, at the time, because that's where the discussion about possibly shutting down was going on at the time.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed policy changes

Hi everyone,

In preparation for a future recruitment drive, I'm trying to clarify what Citizendium wants to be. I'm proposing some changes to the policy document. Please discuss. An election will need to be held in a few weeks on that (date to be announced).

Since The Citizendium no longer enforces what formerly was called Neutrality, I've added "We strive for objectivity.", a short personal essay of my own, to the lower right on the landing page. I hope it won't displease you.Pat Palmer (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Again, I have copied this from it's original location at Forum_Talk:Technical_Issues because it seems really to belong here, in Governance.Pat Palmer (talk) 20:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Multiple articles and other proposed policy changes

I am proposing a few changes in policies and governance over in CZ:Policies. Please take a look at:

I would love to see a discussion of these policies, either here or on the Discussion page of each proposal.Pat Palmer (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

The only policy changes I would support are those that (a) make the membership more inclusive and less hierarchical / bureaucratic, (b)encourage weeding out of non-functional wikilinks and low quality articles (c) make the site faster, cheaper to operate and more SEO friendly.
The present policy (flawed as it is) had the virtue of being short and crisp - to understand or to implement. The proposals, however, are simply too much (and too confused) to digest. Pradyumna Singh (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I certainly agree with the proposals about citable articles. As I pointed out when I was asked to review some of them, certain of the citable articles are by no means citable. Some are woefully incomplete, so that the discussion is unbalanced, and others have manifest errors. I have not been the only one to complain. --Martin Wyatt (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
If anyone wants to revoke a specific Approved article, it is worth asking the management team. Some do have issues such as being out of date or are now recognized as needing correction, and especially if its original authors are not around to maintain it or object, it's worth making a case for a specific Citable version to be removed. Pat Palmer (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)