Dear Larry, Yes, we should avoid what we can of the mistakes of WP, and perhaps one of them is to over-define process. As you say, we want to get the right content regardless of personalities, and perhaps that can best be done by not making the process a formal part of CZ.
I have another heretical suggestion: I have the feeling that many WP disputes arose because there was no way to claim authorship for a particular view except to fight for it. If we sign our work, this will be less necessary. On 10/13/06, Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear all, > > I want to start a discussion about how to resolve disputes among editors, a > topic we haven't really hashed through yet. It is one of the most important > topics that I *haven't* yet written about in the CZ policy doc (it's taking > a long time because I keep getting distracted by other stuff!), and the > reason I haven't is that I'm not sure what to say yet. It's not that I have > no ideas, either (since when did I ever lack for ideas?). It's because we > absolutely must get this right; it's really deeply important. I'm asking > for your help. > > The problem is this. Unlike, say, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy > or the Encyclopedia of Earth, which both have lead editors assigned to > particular articles or subject areas, which editors make the decisions with > regard to those articles/areas, *we* are proposing to approach editorial > responsibilities in "the wiki way." That is, for any given article or set > of articles, there is no particular editor who is *assigned* to make > decisions about that/those article(s). Rather, experts--who meet some > objectively verifiable qualifications, arrive on the scene, and choose to > become editors--must work together collaboratively. So naturally they'll > have disagreements, some of which can't be resolved by discussion and > compromise. *Decisions*, binding decisions about content, will need to be > made--particularly considering that we will be publishing particular > versions of articles as "approved." > > Before actually forwarding any proposals for a process to make these > editorial content decisions, I think it's a good idea to consider some > constraints, or conditions, that a good proposal should satisfy. What > should a well-designed decision process look like? > > (?) The process should elicit the truth. This seems like an obvious > constraint. The outcome of these decisions will be to make a CZ article > read one way rather than another. Presumably, whether it reads one way or > another, if it comes down to a formal process, is going to seem important to > some very well-informed people. It is crucial, then, that the process > outputs something satisfactory. Now we'd like to say that the satisfactory > outcome is precisely expressible as the truth. The trouble, however, is > that if we're using this process to settle a question, then clearly, > well-informed people have different ideas about what the correct answer to > the question is. In that case, do we declare what is, in fact, the truth? > No, because that will put off the losing party and bias the resource. The > better requirement is this: > > (1) The process should be neutral. It should elicit expert knowledge (or > opinion) faithfully and neutrally--or, when an issue is primarily > socio-political, then according to the preponderance of opinion in the > English-speaking world. But it should *accurately* describe the full range > of such knowledge, or opinion. On Wikipedia, there are many people who make > all sorts of claims about what is or isn't "neutral" or "biased" and clearly > haven't got the first clue about what the requirements of the neutrality > policy (never, ever to be referred to as "NPOV" on the Citizendium please > :-) ) is. > > (2) The process should not put off editors; in particular, it should be > regarded as fair. This has a raft of subrequirements: > > (a) People should get a fair hearing. They should have an > opportunity to express themselves fully and to be heard. There should be a > full examination of the relevant facts, i.e., a dialectic. > > (b) The process itself should not be biased in favor of any > particular party to the dispute. > > (c) The person(s) making the decision should be as unbiased as > possible, and should be publicly committed and responsible to the ideal of > unprejudiced judgment. > > (d) The process should not depend on reading ancillary judgments or > debates, or on the outcome of such judgments or debates, that happen apart > from the process; in other words, it must be an *independent* process. > (Otherwise, the process can easily be corrupted and rendered unfair by that > ancillary debate.) > > (e) An exception to the latter is that the decision should be > broadly consistent with "precedent." > > (f) Matters of bad behavior should be strictly separated from the > merits of content questions. A credible position should not be saddled with > the poor behavior of a rogue editor. Therefore, probably, the "history" of > the question (on the wiki) might be ruled as "inadmissible" in the > proceedings. > > (3) The process should not drag out endlessly. It should have an end-point > and an established way to reach it. A spectacularly dynamic content > creation system depends on the smooth and rapid operation of this process. > Therefore, it should not have multiple bottlenecks and steps a la the old > Nupedia system. > > (4) The process must be a "last resort." Since it is apt to be > time-consuming, most controversies over decisions should be made more > informally, in keeping with the "wikiwiki" (i.e., quick) way. > > (5) On the one hand, decisions, once made, should not be able to be unmade > quickly, and should be unmade only if there is some new fact or > consideration of which the decisionmakers were previously unaware. > > (6) On the other hand, a decision made "long ago" (however long that might > be) should be able to be revisited when the relevant personnel have changed > sufficiently (whatever that might be). > > (7) In the interests of efficiency, it is best not to create new roles, but > to employ people from a pre-existing group (e.g., editors in a given > workgroup), unless absolutely necessary. > > (8) Note that the plan of record is to employ, **somehow**, groups of > editors to make these decisions, in the form of "editorial workgroups." > This is only a weak constraint. The basic and stronger constraint is that > *editors* are the ones who make these decisions. > > (9) What else? > > I am tempted to go on and offer some proposals for decisionmaking processes > that satisfy these conditions. But I'd rather let you do that, because this > is already long (but not as long as some other of my posts!). > > --Larry > > > _______________________________________________ > Citizendium-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l > -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
