CZ:Charter drafting committee/Position statements/Russell D. Jones
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
I believe that the vision for CZ should be as it name implies. "Citizens'", where all people have a voice and are respected and "Compendium" a repository of all knowledge, encyclopedic, personal, original, or otherwise.
Defining roles, benefits, and rights for authors and editors will make CZ an attractive and rewarding place to conduct research. I have contributed mostly to articles on U.S. History. I have also been putting forward articles for approval when authors have requested. So I've seen how the approval process works. We need editors and authors.
I have a high degree of respect for this project as a project of area experts. Expert knowledge and the disciplinary practices of experts should be respected. As such, we need dispute resolution processes that are both respectful and democratic. We should have resolution not arbitration.
I have also been a member of the editorial council since 2008. I helped with Chris Day in getting the subgroup proposal through. Having gone through that process, I have knowledge about the proposals system and how that system could be improved.
So the point is, I've been around this project long enough to know how it works and what problems it has. Fixing them may not be the job of the Charter Committee but the charter should establish procedures and mechanisms for making change. With this charter, I believe that we have a bold opportunity to define a system of governance for the web-connected world. A system predicated on collaboration, respect, knowledge: a digital republic of scholars.
I believe that the vision for CZ should be as it name implies. "Citizens'", where all people have a voice and are respected and "Compendium" a repository of all knowledge, encyclopedic, personal, original, or otherwise.
Defining roles, benefits, and rights for authors and editors will make CZ an attractive and rewarding place to conduct research. I have contributed mostly to articles on U.S. History. I have also been putting forward articles for approval when authors have requested. So I've seen how the approval process works. We need editors and authors.
I have a high degree of respect for this project as a project of area experts. Expert knowledge and the disciplinary practices of experts should be respected. As such, we need dispute resolution processes that are both respectful and democratic. We should have resolution not arbitration.
I have also been a member of the editorial council since 2008. I helped with Chris Day in getting the subgroup proposal through. Having gone through that process, I have knowledge about the proposals system and how that system could be improved.
So the point is, I've been around this project long enough to know how it works and what problems it has. Fixing them may not be the job of the Charter Committee but the charter should establish procedures and mechanisms for making change. With this charter, I believe that we have a bold opportunity to define a system of governance for the web-connected world. A system predicated on collaboration, respect, knowledge: a digital republic of scholars.