CZ:Editor Policy: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Yuval Langer
m (Moving Template:Editor Pages to the bottom of the page)
mNo edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
''Citizens--please pitch in.  We need your design skills.  We're adding several new introductory pages for different aspects of the CZ community.  They'll be inviting--simple and well-designed.  Your help with coming up with excellent MediaWiki code designs for these introductory pages will be most appreciated.  Most importantly will be our new project home page, [[CZ:Home]], which will replace [[CZ:Project Home]].  Please dive in if you have the time and inclination, and I'll help of course. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]''
Article 7 of the current [[CZ:Policies|Policies document]] states:


''While all article contributors shall be otherwise equal, there shall be special recognition for subject experts (who shall be individuals with any of: accredited research-level qualifications; three or more peer-reviewed publications; or equivalent practical experience as defined by existing expert contributors), who shall have the final say in any dispute over content, and shall have the right to close a version of a reasonably high quality article to further editing. ''


'''The following text was taken from [[CZ:Policy Outline]]. It probably needs to be further distributed among other pages.'''
The above is the only binding rule on recognized expertise. The rules below represent earlier policies that act as guidance only.
 
{{NoLongerApplies}}


----
----
Line 8: Line 11:
== Individual editor policy ==
== Individual editor policy ==
===Deferring to editors===
===Deferring to editors===
Editors are entrusted with the content management of ''Citizendium'' in their special areas of expertise.


Generally speaking, authors are expected to defer to whomever is an editor for that article.  This means at least two things:
Authors are expected to defer to whomever is an editor for that article.  This means at least two things:


*When an editor has expressed a decision on an article's discussion page, that decision must be followed by authors, even if it is under appeal.
*When an editor has expressed a decision on an article's discussion page, that decision must be followed by authors, even if it is under appeal.
*When an editor has made a certain edit, and has specifically requested that some limited portion of text should not be changed (or that it must not be changed in certain limited ways), then authors should respect the request.  (Editors may not request that articles be simply left alone.)
*When an editor has made a certain edit, and has requested that some limited portion of text should not be changed (or that it must not be changed in certain limited ways), then authors should respect the request.  (Editors may not request that articles be simply left alone.)
 
''Note:'' expectation of deference applies only to an editor's own areas of expertise.  There is no obligation to defer in this way to an editor when the editor is writing on a subject outside of his or her area of expertise.  Of course, all authors should treat each other quite respectfully and, in that way, deferentially.


Editors are entrusted with the content management of the ''Citizendium'' in their special areas of expertise.
''Note:'' expectation of deference applies only to an editor's own areas of expertise.  There is no obligation to defer in this way to an editor when the editor is writing on a subject outside of his or her area of expertise.


In the "wiki" spirit of the ''Citizendium'', our editorial system is set up to make it as easy as possible for new editors to join in the fun, and to be effective guides, without "breaking" the wiki process.  To this end, we have adopted some unusual policies, with which potential editors should familiarize themselves.


Editors will perform three main functions: (1) decisionmaking and dispute resolution; (2) article approval; and (3) low-level administrative management of authors.  The following explains these functions.
Editors will perform three main functions: (1) decisionmaking and dispute resolution; (2) article approval; and (3) low-level administrative management of authors.  The following explains these functions.
Line 24: Line 25:
===Decisionmaking and Dispute Resolution regarding Articles===
===Decisionmaking and Dispute Resolution regarding Articles===


'''Decisionmaking, or the establishment of policies for individual articles.''' Editors may, in areas of their expertise, establish policies regarding what the article should cover (and what should be covered elsewhere), the general structure or narrative arc of the article, the specific wording of definitions (or constraints thereupon), and other such general policies.  In this function, editors are to take the lead in acting as planners or conceptualizers of the article.
'''Decisionmaking, or the establishment of policies for individual articles.''' Editors may, in areas of their expertise, establish policies regarding what the article should cover (and what should be covered elsewhere), the general structure or narrative arc of the article, the specific wording of definitions (or constraints thereupon), and other such general policies.  In this, editors are to take the lead as article planners.


'''Resolving content disputes among authors.'''  Authors inevitably find themselves in disagreement about how an article ought to read, or about other questions regarding the article.  Editors--whether when asked by authors, or on their own initiative--may undertake to resolve these disputes.  But this function must not be exercised lightly: cavalier decisions can easily cause resentment among, or drive away, valuable contributors, or explode into a larger and unnecessary "flame war."  Therefore, in resolving disputes, editors are encouraged to follow something like the following procedure:
'''Resolving content disputes among authors.'''  Authors inevitably find themselves in disagreement about how an article ought to read, or about other questions regarding the article.  Editors may undertake to resolve these disputes.  In resolving disputes, editors are encouraged to :


#Read carefully what the parties to the dispute have written.
#Read carefully what the parties to the dispute have written.
#Make your decision.
#Make your decision.
#In the discussion area, respond to the party or parties that lost the dispute.  Concede where they were right, and explain carefully and respectfully where they were wrong.
#In the discussion area, respond to the party or parties that lost the dispute.  Concede where they were right, and explain carefully and respectfully where they were wrong.
#Finally, and in a separate edit, in the "decisions" area state briefly and sign (with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) your decision.  (This may not be necessary in every case, as for example when deciding to remove some idiosyncratic statement.)
#Finally, and in a separate edit, in the "decisions" area state briefly and sign (with four tildes: <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) your decision.   
Bear in mind that you ''need not'' go through this process when explaining every time you alter an author's work.  But all authors, ''editors included,'' are generally expected to explain ''significant'' changes they make, on the discussion page, partly as good recordkeeping, but mostly to justify their behavior politely to other contributors.
You ''need not'' go through this process every time you alter an author's work.  But all authors, ''editors included,'' are generally expected to explain ''significant'' changes they make, on the discussion page.


===Article Approval===
===Article Approval===
 
'''The meaning of editorial approval.'''  Editors may approve ''Citizendium'' articles, i.e., certify that they meet certain standards. See [[CZ:Approval Process|approval process]].
'''The meaning of editorial approval.'''  Editors may approve ''Citizendium'' articles, i.e., certify that they meet article standards. When an editor approves of an article, he or she is ''explicitly claiming'' that that particular version of the article meets those standards, and that he is willing to stake his professional reputation on that claim.  The relevant standards are outlined in [[CZ:Approval Standards|approval standards]].When this occurs, the editor nominates the article for approval and the nomination template is placed.
 
'''Nomination for approval.''' This template designates a date for an approved version to be frozen, and a draft of the article to be generated for further changes. Approval will occur if the template remains in place on the article so nominated on the date specified.
 
'''Cancellation of nomination for approval.'''  If another editor, who is also expert in the topic of the article, believes it does ''not'' meet the standards, he or she may either (1) discuss the problems on the talk page before the approval date,and try to have a consensus on a revised version (recommended), or (2) cancel the "nomination for approval" of the article by removing the template.  The second editor may take this action without consulting the first; but if the first insists, the issue of approval is resolved by the relevant editorial workgroup(s) as any editorial disputes are resolved (see [[CZ:Policy on resolving editorial disputes|policy on resolving editorial disputes]]).
 
'''The role of the Approvals Management Editor.'''  The Approvals Management Editor helps authors and editors achieve approval, copyedit approved articles, and communicates with the ''Citizendium'' community about newly approved, nearly approved, and newly proofed versions of approved articles. In addition, this editor facilitates co-ordination between constables and editors to effect approvals, and oversees proofs of approved articles, for copyediting purposes.  This editor is not ''required'' to be involved in the approval process, but rather, helps to keep things moving along smoothly.  Furthermore, he or she may appoint and train Assistant Approvals Management Editors, to help spread out any workload, if needed.
 
For more details see, [[CZ:Approval Process|approval process]].


===Low-Level Administrative Management of Authors===
===Low-Level Administrative Management of Authors===


'''Editors may not exercise constable authority over articles in their areas of expertise.'''  As editor of a particular article, you may not exercise constable powers, even if you are a constable; that is, you may not use constable powers to resolve problems.  Rather, you must call upon another constable.  The reason for this "separation of powers," of course, is the same reason that executive and judicial authorities are separated in developed nations: it prevents abuse of authority and provides a layer of mutual oversight.
'''Managing problem users.'''  As editor, while patience is greatly appreciated, you need not go to superhuman lengths to tolerate low quality or bad faith work, or abusive behavior.  At the most extreme, you may recommend to the Constabulary that authors be banned.  But there are many things that editors can do before going to this length.  Just for example, if an author appears open to advice, you might recommend some background reading.  Or, without actually getting a constable involved, you might ask an author to take a break for a time to get proper perspective.  Finally, you might informally request that an author not edit an article, rather than "make it official" by involving the Constabulary.


'''Managing problem users.'''  Editors will encounter "problem users" and will certainly want to do something. As editor, while patience is greatly appreciated, you need not go to superhuman lengths to tolerate low quality or bad faith work, or abusive behavior.  At the most extreme, you may recommend to the Constabulary that authors be banned.  But there are many things that editors can do before going to this length.  Just for example, if an author appears open to advice, you might recommend some background reading.  Or, without actually getting a constable involved, you might ask an author to take a break for a time to get proper perspective.  Finally, you might informally request that an author not edit an article, rather than "make it official" by involving the Constabulary.
'''Recommending content-based bans.'''  If an editor feels that a certain author produces such a quantity of bad edits, which require so much "cleaning up" (if not outright deletion) that it would be better for the project if the person simply were not to work in an area (or on the project as a whole), then the editor may recommend that the author be banned from editing a certain article, from any of a group of articles, or from the ''Citizendium'' as a whole.  The determination is privately given to the Constabulary, and what happens after that is determined by the Constabulary--see [[CZ:Banning Policy|policy on content-based bans]]--not the editor.


'''Recommending content-based bans.'''  Some authors will prove to be very difficult to negotiate with in this way.  Therefore, if an editor feels that a certain author produces such a quantity of bad edits, which require so much "cleaning up" (if not outright deletion) that it would actually be better for the project if the person simply were not to work in an area (or on the project as a whole), then the editor may recommend that the author be banned from editing a certain article, from any of a group of articles, or from the ''Citizendium'' as a whole.  Only editors (individually or in editorial workgroups) may make such a determination.  The determination is privately given to the Constabulary, and what happens after that is determined by the Constabulary--see [[CZ:Banning Policy|policy on content-based bans]]--not the editor, although the editor may be asked to explain points and offer evidence.  Note that extensive bans (such as bans from working on the entire website, or lifetime bans) will require testimony from more than just one editor; again, see [[CZ:Banning Policy|policy on content-based bans]].
'''Behavioral issues'''  Editors are not responsible for making recommendations about behavioral problems, but only those problems that stem from the quality of an editor's good faith work.
 
'''Behavioral issues, not within the purview of editors.'''  Bear in mind that editors are not responsible for making recommendations about behavioral problems, but only those problems that stem from the quality of an editor's good faith work.  That is, editors may make enforcement recommendations based on the poor quality of work done in good faith, but their complaints about bad faith behavior will not be regarded as binding on constables in the way that content-based recommendations are.  Furthermore, in either case, it is the Constabulary that ultimately determines the length and breadth of a ban.


=== Editorial Dispute Resolution: Notes for Individual Editors ===
=== Editorial Dispute Resolution: Notes for Individual Editors ===


'''Collaborative and collegial behavior expected.'''  Editors are expected to work together collegially, as co-equals, on articles about which they can both legitimately claim expertise.  As with disputes among authors, the first step toward resolving a dispute is to see whether the editors cannot reach satisfactory compromise.
'''Collaborative and collegial behavior expected.'''  Editors are expected to work together collegially, as co-equals, on articles about which they can both legitimately claim expertise.  The first step toward resolving a dispute is to see whether the editors cannot reach satisfactory compromise.


'''Constabulary is not to be called to settle editorial disputes.'''  The Constabulary should not be called, nor should it attempt to settle, disputes between editors of an article, unless it can be regarded as perfectly obvious that one person is not, in fact, an editor--that is, that it is obvious to a nonspecialist that one person claiming editorship has not established even a minimally plausible claim of possessing special knowledge of the topic in question.  Then the Constabulary may be called to consider the question of "minimally plausible" editorship.
'''Constabulary is not to be called to settle editorial disputes.'''  The Constabulary should not be called, nor should it attempt to settle, disputes between editors of an article, unless it can be regarded as perfectly obvious that one person is not, in fact, an editor--that is, that it is obvious to a nonspecialist that one person claiming editorship has not established even a minimally plausible claim of possessing special knowledge of the topic in question.  Then the Constabulary may be called to consider the question of "minimally plausible" editorship.


'''Disputes referred to editorial workgroups.'''  When one editor (or both) has decided that a compromise is not in the offing, then one editor should inform the other that he or she is referring the matter to a particular editorial workgroup.  What happens after that is determined by the editorial workgroup (see [[CZ:Policy on resolving editorial disputes|policy on resolving editorial disputes]]).
'''Disputes referred to editorial workgroups.'''  When one editor (or both) has decided that a compromise is not in the offing, then one editor should inform the other that he or she is referring the matter to a particular editorial workgroup.  What happens after that is determined by the editorial workgroup (see [[CZ:Policy on resolving editorial disputes|policy on resolving editorial disputes]]).
'''Appeal to the [[CZ:Managing Editor|Managing Editor]]'''. Parties involved in a dispute may ask the Ombudsman to mediate or rule pending the establishment of firm editorial policy.
'''Appeal to the [[CZ:Council|Council]]'''. Any Citizen may ask the Council to set policy to deal with the dispute.


See also [[CZ:Conflict Resolution|Conflict Resolution]].
See also [[CZ:Conflict Resolution|Conflict Resolution]].


===Editor Registration===
===Editor Registration===
'''Editor application procedure.''' Essentially, one fills out [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:RequestAccount a Web form,] with a CV and supporting weblinks.  One of [[:Category:CZ Editorial Personnel Administrators|a group of editors]] will review and approve the application, if you meet the requirements stated below.  The basic requirements can be found on the above-linked application form..
'''Editorial personnel administrators.'''  For now, the editor-in-chief asks a diverse group of editors to review and make decisions on new editor applications.  See [[CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure|Editor Application Review Procedure]] for the practical rules and procedures that editorial personnel administrators follow.
'''Challenges to editorship claims.'''  Anyone--author, constable, or editor--may (privately) request that the relevant editorial workgroup do a minimal review of someone's claim to editorship.  Such a request should, for now, be sent to the editor-in-chief.
See [[CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure|Editor Application Review Procedure]] for details.
See [[CZ:Editor Application Review Procedure|Editor Application Review Procedure]] for details.


Line 127: Line 114:
*Employment with the company that produces the software.
*Employment with the company that produces the software.


===Other Notes for Editors===
'''No exclusive assignments.'''  It is ''not'' the case that there will be one editor per topic or subject.  So there can be as many editors of an article as arrive: the more the merrier.  All editors involved will be expected to work as co-equals, and via editorial workgroup mechanisms.
'''Editorship is always editorship of specific topics.'''  There are no global editors, so to speak; there are editors only with respect to articles in their specific areas of expertise.  Editors may serve as authors of articles outside their expertise, of course, but they may not, with respect to those articles, serve as editors.  We may anticipate that many editors will do a great deal of work on articles of which they are not editors--just not editor work.
'''Editors should not record their editorship on the articles themselves.'''  Editors should not place their names on an article in their purview, neither on the article itself nor on the discussion page, except as noted above, e.g., in signing a particular decision or in a particular article approval.  In other words, there will ''not'' be a special template or box on each article, or on its discussion page, that lists people who claim to be editors of a particular article.  Furthermore, the ''Citizendium'' management and contributors may not make such lists.  The purpose of this policy is to prevent the creation of exclusive groups of overseers for particular articles, and to ensure that article developments remains fully collaborative.  Editors ''may'', however, list articles that they regard as being in their editorial purview ''on their own user pages''.  Such claims are open to review by the relevant editorial workgroup.
'''No authority by proxy.'''  Editorial authority is not transferable.  Editors may not designate, for example, graduate students to act in their stead.  They may, of course, ask anyone to watch an article and follow their instructions; but even in such a case, such an assigned person must not attempt to speak on behalf of the editor and thereby claim editorial authority.  No one will be expected to, or should, respect claims to authority by proxy.
==Editorial Workgroups and Management==
===Editorial Council===
'''The Editorial Council, how chosen.'''  The ''Citizendium''<nowiki>'</nowiki>s Editorial Council will deliberate about and decide questions of editorial policy.  While initially, all editors will be eligible for membership, for purposes of workability the Council may eventually wish to limit membership to a certain number of editors.  Editors will then be selected every one or two years by sortition from among volunteer editors.
'''Purview of the Council.'''  The Council will have broad authority to settle matters of editorial policy, including, but not necessarily limited to:
* Naming conventions
* Article standards
* Article deletion
* Article approval
* Editorial dispute resolution
* Editor registration
* The Topic Informant program
* The list of workgroups
* The process of creating new workgroups
* The process of choosing Chief Subject Editors
* Editor review policy (but editors may not be removed through deliberation of the entire body)
* The Editorial Council itself
The Editorial Council is ''not'' responsible for Constabulary policy, technical requirements (beyond those specifically connected to editor tools), technical priorities, author registration, or a future Citizendium Charter.
'''Operation of the Council.'''  The Council will deliberate via a mailing list.  If necessary, the list moderator will limit the number of messages, either total or from each person, to ensure that the total amount of discussion does not make participation prohibitively costly for many editors, and to ensure that no single person tends to dominate the discussion.  The list will begin unmoderated, but if there is too much mail, discussion too frequently gets off topic, or discussion becomes acrimonious too often, then it may become moderated.  Another option will be to create workgroups (subcommittees) devoted to particular topics.
'''Leadership of the Council.'''  The Editor-in-Chief will initially chair the Council.  Depending on the interest, time commitment, and suitability of various contributors to the Council's work, he may appoint a replacement.  In the future, the chair of the Council will be selected through a non-politicizable method to be decided by the Council.  The chair's primary function is to take a leading role in discussion and, when necessary, take a vote of the Council members, or (when a vote seems unnecessary) make an assessment of the sense of the Council.  Any Council member may challenge such an assessment and call for a vote, however.  While any Council member may propose that a certain issue be voted upon, it is the purview of the Chair to decide finally what competing positions shall be presented to the Council.
'''Outcome of decisions.'''  Until or unless the Council decides otherwise, any member of the Council may make changes to wiki pages that reflect the outcome of a vote or of the chair's sense of the Council.
'''Ejection of Council members.'''  Any Council member may ''privately'' request that the Chair put it to a vote that another member be removed.  It is then up to the Chair to decide whether to put this to a vote of a randomly selected group of five Council members.  This may be necessary if a particular member appears to be calling for more votes than other members can tolerate, unduly dominating discussion, or behaving in an uncollegial way.  The Chair may be removed by this process, but the decision and choice of voters is performed by the Editor-in-Chief or, in case they are the same person, the Chief Constable, and in this case, complaints from three Council members are needed.  A Council member may be ejected from the Council without necessarily losing his or her ''Citizendium'' editorship.  However, anyone who does lose his or her editorship is automatically removed from the Council.
'''Replacement of Council members.'''  Particularly if there is a limited number of seats on the Council, the Council will take efforts to fill an empty seat, by sortition, as soon as possible.
For more information, please see the [[CZ:Editorial Council|Editorial Council home page]].
===Editorial Workgroups in General===
'''Editorial workgroups, their types and purpose.''' In general, editorial workgroups are collections of ''Citizendium'' editors tasked with loose oversight of sets of articles.  Editorial workgroups are of three types: discipline, subdiscipline, and project.  Discipline and subdiscipline workgroups oversee specific subject areas, such as philosophy or particle physics, while project workgroups oversee certain classes of article, ''overlapping'' the discipline and subdiscipline workgroups, that have special requirements, such as biographies of living people.  The ''purpose'' of editorial workgroups is to act as a resource to, and arbiter of, contributors working on a set of wiki articles.  Workgroups may set policy and standards that are appropriate for that set of articles.  Workgroups may also set up meetings in physical space--for example, as part of a larger professional meeting.
'''The membership of a workgroup defined by the composition of its [mailing list/forum].'''
A [mailing lists/forum] will be set up for all editorial workgroups.  A workgroup is precisely defined by the roster of members who are on the [mailing list/forum] for that workgroup.  No other list will be regarded as official.
'''Workgroups reactive, not proactive; and other restrictions.'''
It makes up no part of the purpose of editorial workgroups to ''direct'' the work done on the wiki; that is, while workgroups may establish some general policy for an area, its oversight over actual work done is reactive, not proactive.  Similarly, it is far beyond the remit of a workgroup to make up new rules, that apply only to the articles in its care, that make it difficult for whole classes of people to work where, when, and as they want.  In short, workgroups will not be permitted to make the wiki operate any less as a wiki.  Furthermore, a workgroup may not establish policy that, if established at all, should plausibly govern a broader set of articles than the articles in the care of the workgroup.
'''Subject workgroups are divided into discipline and subdiscipline workgroups, but do not form a hierarchy.'''
A discipline workgroup, such as philosophy or physics, may form workgroups for subdisciplines, such as ethics or particle physics, and assign classes of articles to those workgroups.  While a discipline workgroup may establish policy and standards for all the articles in the discipline, that policy and those standards are interpreted by the subgroups; there is no chain of command or of appeal from subdiscipline workgroups to discipline workgroups.
'''Every article assigned to at least one workgroup.'''
Every ''Citizendium'' article will be assigned to at least one workgroup.  Some articles will be assigned to more than one workgroup; see the [[CZ:Policy on Shared Articles|policy on shared articles]].  Articles should not be assigned ''both'' to a discipline workgroup ''and'' a subdiscipline workgroup in the same discipline.  If it is thought that an article would be best managed by a subdiscipline workgroup that has not yet been created, then the article will be (at least temporarily) assigned to the discipline workgroup.
===Editorial Workgroup Formation and Function===
'''The formation of discipline workgroups.'''
A comprehensive set of discipline subject workgroups will be formed at the same time, by a process of rough consensus from among the editors subscribed to the "''Citizendium''-Editors" mailing list, and the results of which will be articulated by the Editor-in-Chief.
'''The formation of subdiscipline workgroups.'''
Each discipline workgroup will be expected, as one of its first tasks, to formulate a list of at least 10 and not more than 40 subdiscipline workgroups.  Subdiscipline workgroups should not be tasked with any responsibilities, however, until there is a quorum of at least three [or five??] members and at least one suitable Chief Subject Editor for the group.  See [[CZ:Policy on Starting Subdiscipline Workgroups|policy on starting subdiscipline workgroups]].
'''The formation and operation of project workgroups.'''
The Editor-in-Chief will, with advice from the community of editors on the ''Citizendium''-Editors mailing list, form project workgroups.  Each project workgroup will be managed by its own Project Leader, who will select the membership of the project workgroup, and to whom editors may apply.  For details on the operation of project workgroups, see [[CZ:Policy on Project Workgroups|policy on project project workgroups]].
'''Eligibility for workgroup membership.'''
All subject editors are automatically eligible for membership in a discipline workgroup, i.e., the discipline that would typically teach their specialization at a university.  Specialty editors are not eligible for workgroup membership, unless there is a workgroup that precisely corresponds to their specialization.  But (unlike authors) they may represent their own positions in dispute resolution before workgroups that govern their specialization.
'''Workgroup proliferation.'''
Note, we do not anticipate the indefinite growth of numbers of workgroups.  But it is entirely possible that, as subdiscipline workgroups grow in size, members may feel that they can be ''optimally'' split into further and smaller groups.  They are permitted to make this determination themselves, although subgroups may not be formed unless most of the anticipated subgroups would have quorums if constructed.  Note that articles are then to be reassigned to new subgroups, they are not to be regarded as under the control of the parent group.
'''General policy against overstandardization.'''
In making policies and standards, editors must constantly weigh the advantages of uniformity against the disadvantages of teaching and maintaining the policy or standard.  Generally, a policy or standard must be shown "pay for itself" in terms of ''clearly expressed and obvious'' advantage for the project.
===Chief Subject Editors===
'''Chief Subject Editor responsibilities.'''
For each discipline and subdiscipline workgroup, there will be a Chief Subject Editor, who is appointed for a one year term, and whose main function is to speak on behalf of the group.
'''Chief Subject Editor selection.'''
Chief Subject Editors will be selected through a specific process of [[sortition]], to keep editor relations as apolitical as possible.  Subject editors for a given discipline or subdiscipline declare their willingness to serve as Chief Subject Editor to a neutral third party (sortition administrator).  A list of such declared persons is then sent secretly to all members of the workgroup by the sortition administrator.  Members are instructed to submit "objections" to up to n% [TBD] (a specific number will be provided for each sortition) of the names on the list.  The sortition administrator then receives objections from any members.  If more than n% [TBD] (a specific number will be provided for each sortition) of the workgroup objects a certain person, then the sortition administrator removes the person from the list.  If no persons remain, then the list is repopulated by the person or persons who received the fewest objections.  If one person remains, that is the chief subject editor.  If more than one person remains, the sortition administrator uses a random number generator to determine which person is the chief subject editor.  No Chief Subject Editor may serve more than two consecutive terms.
===Editor Review===
[This section needs extensive review by the ''Citizendium''-Editors mailing list.]
===Dispute Resolution===
[This section will be drafted after further discussion with the ''Citizendium''-Editors mailing list.  This section should include sections regarding both '''Content disputes between authors''' (for which there aren't any editors on hand) and '''Content disputes between editors'''.


{{Editor Pages}}
{{Editor Policy}}
[[Category:Policies]]

Latest revision as of 11:19, 3 January 2023

Article 7 of the current Policies document states:

While all article contributors shall be otherwise equal, there shall be special recognition for subject experts (who shall be individuals with any of: accredited research-level qualifications; three or more peer-reviewed publications; or equivalent practical experience as defined by existing expert contributors), who shall have the final say in any dispute over content, and shall have the right to close a version of a reasonably high quality article to further editing.

The above is the only binding rule on recognized expertise. The rules below represent earlier policies that act as guidance only.


The information on the page below is likely OBSOLETE
At least some of this information applied to an older way of operating
The wiki's policies and rules are now linked to the main page at Welcome_to_Citizendium.

Individual editor policy

Deferring to editors

Editors are entrusted with the content management of Citizendium in their special areas of expertise.

Authors are expected to defer to whomever is an editor for that article. This means at least two things:

  • When an editor has expressed a decision on an article's discussion page, that decision must be followed by authors, even if it is under appeal.
  • When an editor has made a certain edit, and has requested that some limited portion of text should not be changed (or that it must not be changed in certain limited ways), then authors should respect the request. (Editors may not request that articles be simply left alone.)

Note: expectation of deference applies only to an editor's own areas of expertise. There is no obligation to defer in this way to an editor when the editor is writing on a subject outside of his or her area of expertise.


Editors will perform three main functions: (1) decisionmaking and dispute resolution; (2) article approval; and (3) low-level administrative management of authors. The following explains these functions.

Decisionmaking and Dispute Resolution regarding Articles

Decisionmaking, or the establishment of policies for individual articles. Editors may, in areas of their expertise, establish policies regarding what the article should cover (and what should be covered elsewhere), the general structure or narrative arc of the article, the specific wording of definitions (or constraints thereupon), and other such general policies. In this, editors are to take the lead as article planners.

Resolving content disputes among authors. Authors inevitably find themselves in disagreement about how an article ought to read, or about other questions regarding the article. Editors may undertake to resolve these disputes. In resolving disputes, editors are encouraged to :

  1. Read carefully what the parties to the dispute have written.
  2. Make your decision.
  3. In the discussion area, respond to the party or parties that lost the dispute. Concede where they were right, and explain carefully and respectfully where they were wrong.
  4. Finally, and in a separate edit, in the "decisions" area state briefly and sign (with four tildes: ~~~~) your decision.

You need not go through this process every time you alter an author's work. But all authors, editors included, are generally expected to explain significant changes they make, on the discussion page.

Article Approval

The meaning of editorial approval. Editors may approve Citizendium articles, i.e., certify that they meet certain standards. See approval process.

Low-Level Administrative Management of Authors

Managing problem users. As editor, while patience is greatly appreciated, you need not go to superhuman lengths to tolerate low quality or bad faith work, or abusive behavior. At the most extreme, you may recommend to the Constabulary that authors be banned. But there are many things that editors can do before going to this length. Just for example, if an author appears open to advice, you might recommend some background reading. Or, without actually getting a constable involved, you might ask an author to take a break for a time to get proper perspective. Finally, you might informally request that an author not edit an article, rather than "make it official" by involving the Constabulary.

Recommending content-based bans. If an editor feels that a certain author produces such a quantity of bad edits, which require so much "cleaning up" (if not outright deletion) that it would be better for the project if the person simply were not to work in an area (or on the project as a whole), then the editor may recommend that the author be banned from editing a certain article, from any of a group of articles, or from the Citizendium as a whole. The determination is privately given to the Constabulary, and what happens after that is determined by the Constabulary--see policy on content-based bans--not the editor.

Behavioral issues Editors are not responsible for making recommendations about behavioral problems, but only those problems that stem from the quality of an editor's good faith work.

Editorial Dispute Resolution: Notes for Individual Editors

Collaborative and collegial behavior expected. Editors are expected to work together collegially, as co-equals, on articles about which they can both legitimately claim expertise. The first step toward resolving a dispute is to see whether the editors cannot reach satisfactory compromise.

Constabulary is not to be called to settle editorial disputes. The Constabulary should not be called, nor should it attempt to settle, disputes between editors of an article, unless it can be regarded as perfectly obvious that one person is not, in fact, an editor--that is, that it is obvious to a nonspecialist that one person claiming editorship has not established even a minimally plausible claim of possessing special knowledge of the topic in question. Then the Constabulary may be called to consider the question of "minimally plausible" editorship.

Disputes referred to editorial workgroups. When one editor (or both) has decided that a compromise is not in the offing, then one editor should inform the other that he or she is referring the matter to a particular editorial workgroup. What happens after that is determined by the editorial workgroup (see policy on resolving editorial disputes).

Appeal to the Managing Editor. Parties involved in a dispute may ask the Ombudsman to mediate or rule pending the establishment of firm editorial policy.

Appeal to the Council. Any Citizen may ask the Council to set policy to deal with the dispute.

See also Conflict Resolution.

Editor Registration

See Editor Application Review Procedure for details.

Categories of Editorship

What areas of editorship an editor may claim. General editors may claim editorship, if they can demonstrate that they meet minimum standards, over one or more of the following.

  1. General topics: any topics that are broad/general background knowledge in the discipline in which they have their expertise (e.g., in philosophy, "philosophy," "ethics," "history of philosophy").
  2. Mid-range topics: the broad/general topics associated with their subdisciplines (e.g., in ethics, "right," "good," obligation," "utilitarianism").
  3. Specialized topics: beyond such general claims, those quite specific topics on which a person has published, given presentations, or done other professional work (e.g., Kant's moral theory, "categorical imperative," "Kingdom of Ends").

General editors vs. specialty editors. Within a given discipline, such as Philosophy, History, and Engineering, we distinguish between general editors and specialty editors, with general editors for a discipline having general editorial authority over general and mid-range topics, and specialty editors having authority only over some relatively circumscribed, specialized topics.

Academic, professional, and non-academic (or hobbyist) fields. We draw the usual distinction between academic and professional fields, and we distinguish both of these from non-academic (or hobbyist) fields. Depending on the type of field, the requirements of editorship may differ. See below.

Standards for general and specialty editorship in academic fields. As a rule of thumb, general editors in academic fields are those who have recently done a substantial amount of research at a level expected of someone eligible for a tenure track position at a four-year college. This means both of the following:

  • Having received, or being no more than six months away from receiving, the degree typically expected of college professors in one's field; typically a Ph.D. or M.D.; or having tenure or a tenure-track position at an accredited, recognized four-year institution.
  • Having published at least three papers in peer-reviewed publications, or having given five presentations at academic conferences, within the past five years.

The precise standards for specific disciplines, if different from the above, will be worked out and posted later.

Specialty editors need not have as extensive experience in a discipline as general editors. But at the very least they must have a college education, and they must have demonstrable experience in their fields. For example (this is apt to vary from field to field), many traditional academic fields might require both of the following:

  • A Master's degree or other post-graduate (in the U.S., graduate) degree; or three or more years in a mostly-research position, post-bachelor's degree.
  • Having published at least three papers in peer-reviewed publications, or having given five presentations at academic conferences, within the past five years, on some specific topic (i.e., the topic of the specialty editorship); or having worked in a "hands-on" way with the topic of specialization for three or more years.

The precise standards for specific disciplines, if different from the above, will be worked out and posted later.

General editorship in professional fields. In engineering, law, medicine, journalism, computer programming, library science, and some other professional fields, frequently the "terminal degree" for professional work is not a doctorate, and expert members of these professions might not actually be employable as university faculty. Nevertheless, some active members of these professions are very plausibly regarded as quite expert in their fields, and quite able to speak with authority about them, based not only on "book learning" but on practical experience.

In view of these facts, it is Citizendium policy that the requirements for general and specialty editorship may also be satisfied in another way for the professional disciplines. In general, and this varies from field to field, general editorship in professional work may be satisfied by the combination of the following:

  • The terminal degree for professional work in your field (perhaps as defined by your leading professional organization); in most professional fields, not a doctorate.
  • A professional specialization, and at least three years of continuous, responsible employment engaged directly in that specialization, post-degree.
  • Professional certification (if it exists and is required for all practicing members of your profession).
  • At least two of the following: three different professional memberships; at least three presentations in your field; or two papers in peer reviewed journals or well-respected trade journals in your field; or another type of significant speaking, publishing, practicum, etc., expected of professionals in your field.

The precise standards for specific professions, if different from the above, will be worked out and posted later.

There is no similar way to establish specialty editorship in professional fields; but bear in mind that non-academic professionals may be able to establish the requirements for specialty editorship listed above.

Editorship over "non-academic" or hobbyist topics. There are many topics that are of relatively little interest to academics, where the people in possession of the most knowledge about the topic are typically not university faculty at all. This is the case for much of popular culture, and popular movements generally. There are also many topics that are studied just as carefully by hobbyists as by academics--where the "experts" are just as likely to be non-academics as academics--such as, for example, kinds of folk music. Consequently, if a person can demonstrate substantial expertise about such topics, they may become specialty editors for those specific topics. Citizendium editorial staff will compile a table of such qualifications.

Merely as an indicative example, we might say that a person may claim a specialty editorship over a particular video game if he or she shows evidence of many of the following:

  • Several articles published in leading magazines and journals about video gaming.
  • Leadership positions in serious organizations about video gaming.
  • Having achieved a high score, level, or rank within the gaming community.
  • Writing modules, enhancements, etc., of the software.
  • Employment with the company that produces the software.


Citizendium Editor Policy
The Editor Role | Approval Process | Article Deletion Policy

|width=10% align=center style="background:#F5F5F5"|  |}

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=CZ:Editor_Policy&oldid=876225"