>From: "Larry Sanger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: [Citizendium-l] Editorial dispute resolution >Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:03:17 -0700 >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." >
Is this a question about how to make an article "approved"? It sounds like a question as to how to resolve a dispute between editors for the purpose of being able to give the article approved status rather than letting it stay in unapproved limbo. This seems to me to assume that more than one editor would be required to approve an article. I hope that CZ makes it so that no more than one editor is required to approve a CZ article. Why? I fear that if the approval process becomes too cumbersome, and requiring approval from multiple editors would make it more cumbersome, then it could easily intimidate the citizens of the world to stay away and not participate, and a robust Citizen/author-driven Citizendium, managed by experts/editors, would not occur. A compendium whose new writings/edits were almost always written only by experts/editors would occur instead. If an article having approved status because any one self-selected editor approves it implies too many unacceptable problems, then maybe CZ could select which of the self-selected editors could grant approval status. If this were done and only Ph.D's were given this power to grant approval status, then, if some Ph.D's could not collaborate, then an approved article could change back and forth from one approved form to another as these Ph.D's tried to outlast each other. But this might not occur occur often enough to warrant formalizing a dispute resolution process or warrant requiring multiple editors to approve an article. Cheers, Paul _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
