User:D. Matt Innis/CurrentDraft/RevisedStructure/Re-Vote

The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.

The current usage is:

{{CharterVote3
|Finished=
|article=Preamble
|Discussion={{CharterVote2|article=46}}
}}

Which produces:

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 46 accept [e] [e] revise [e] agree with Russell, we will need to officially delegate that power [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] "Informally agree?" that'll take forever. How about Chief Constable or Secretary of EC? [e] revise [e] needs to be formal [e] 46 Not Accepted (3 accept, 3 revise) [e] Discussion and comments: From the comments, it looks like the problem with the preamble was with "update" and "a social". Let's just change that first. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, in the interest of getting this part of the process started, let's begin the discussion here and then move it to the proper place above as soon as we have a good mechanism for placing it in the collapsible table. What about for the preamble: Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. and then leave the definition of "Citizen" for article 1, which could read something like: Registered contributors are called "Citizens" --Joe Quick 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC) So, for now, we all should be able to add our votes throughout the process until we have a majority. Just demarcate your vote with a (*). If you want to suggest further chagnes, feel free and everyone can vote again. D. Matt Innis 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Joe's above formulations for preamble and article 1. D. Matt Innis 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) As a definition of what CZ is, the preamble should state our role in the production of knowledge (e.g., "update"). I would suggest "create," "write," or "author" knowledge or something else along those lines. To say that we just "collect and structure knowledge" makes us sounds like dry indexers. I am willing to go along with moving the definition of citizen to Article I. Shouldn't we also say that the Citizendium is an online community? We don't even identify it as a website. We could be writing a free paperback for what this says. Note that by article 4 the charter is calling it a "site." I propose the following: Jones 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. I like 'create knowledge'. It certainly is a different persective than WP. However, does the 'create knowledge' tends to open us up to 'original research' which I am not totally against, especially when we are talking about 'original synthesis of knowledge', but what if this opens us up to cranks? D. Matt Innis 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Sure, but our saving grace is our approval process. We disavow everything on this site that is not approved. See this. But CZ is different, we will claim that our approved content is reliable. Cranks will need to get their articles through the approval process. I doubt that is very likely. If the EC is wary of having crank articles gathering cobwebs, they can come up with a recycling policy. Jones 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That sounds good to me. I'll agree to Russell Jones' version. D. Matt Innis 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with moving the definition of "Citizens" downwards. Two points on Russell's version: (1) we now have "create(d)" twice, and (2) still no mention of it taking place online. So I would go for the following change in the second sentence: The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. --Daniel Mietchen 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree Russell D. Jones 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [outdent] I have the same icky feeling (that's a technical term, people) about "create" that I had about "update". I'm certainly not going to stand in the way if you all agree, but how about "foster" instead? That's the last complaint I'll make about it, if you all disagree.. oh yea, foster is better.. or cultivate. agree to Daniel's addition, i.e. "built online" -Joe Quick 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. -Joe Quick 00:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Russell D. Jones 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]

When you wish to do another round of voting, change it like this:

{{CharterVote3
|Finished=
|article=Preamble
|Discussion={{CharterVote2|article=46}}
{{!}}----
{{CharterVote2|article=46 (v2)}}
}}

Which produces this:

Discussion as per Charter Vote Spreadsheet Article Joe vote Joe comment Matt vote Matt comment Howard vote Howard comment Martin vote Martin comment Russell vote Russell comment Daniel vote Daniel comment Article Tally 46 accept [e] [e] revise [e] agree with Russell, we will need to officially delegate that power [e] accept [e] [e] accept [e] [e] revise [e] "Informally agree?" that'll take forever. How about Chief Constable or Secretary of EC? [e] revise [e] needs to be formal [e] 46 Not Accepted (3 accept, 3 revise) [e] 46 (v2) [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] [e] 46 (v2) [e] Discussion and comments: From the comments, it looks like the problem with the preamble was with "update" and "a social". Let's just change that first. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and update knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to a social covenant centered around trust. Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers — henceforth Citizens — who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, in the interest of getting this part of the process started, let's begin the discussion here and then move it to the proper place above as soon as we have a good mechanism for placing it in the collapsible table. What about for the preamble: Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect and structure knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. and then leave the definition of "Citizen" for article 1, which could read something like: Registered contributors are called "Citizens" --Joe Quick 14:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC) So, for now, we all should be able to add our votes throughout the process until we have a majority. Just demarcate your vote with a (*). If you want to suggest further chagnes, feel free and everyone can vote again. D. Matt Innis 14:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with Joe's above formulations for preamble and article 1. D. Matt Innis 14:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC) As a definition of what CZ is, the preamble should state our role in the production of knowledge (e.g., "update"). I would suggest "create," "write," or "author" knowledge or something else along those lines. To say that we just "collect and structure knowledge" makes us sounds like dry indexers. I am willing to go along with moving the definition of citizen to Article I. Shouldn't we also say that the Citizendium is an online community? We don't even identify it as a website. We could be writing a free paperback for what this says. Note that by article 4 the charter is calling it a "site." I propose the following: Jones 20:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is created by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. I like 'create knowledge'. It certainly is a different persective than WP. However, does the 'create knowledge' tends to open us up to 'original research' which I am not totally against, especially when we are talking about 'original synthesis of knowledge', but what if this opens us up to cranks? D. Matt Innis 20:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Sure, but our saving grace is our approval process. We disavow everything on this site that is not approved. See this. But CZ is different, we will claim that our approved content is reliable. Cranks will need to get their articles through the approval process. I doubt that is very likely. If the EC is wary of having crank articles gathering cobwebs, they can come up with a recycling policy. Jones 21:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC) That sounds good to me. I'll agree to Russell Jones' version. D. Matt Innis 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC) I agree with moving the definition of "Citizens" downwards. Two points on Russell's version: (1) we now have "create(d)" twice, and (2) still no mention of it taking place online. So I would go for the following change in the second sentence: The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and create knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. --Daniel Mietchen 23:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Agree Russell D. Jones 00:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [outdent] I have the same icky feeling (that's a technical term, people) about "create" that I had about "update". I'm certainly not going to stand in the way if you all agree, but how about "foster" instead? That's the last complaint I'll make about it, if you all disagree.. oh yea, foster is better.. or cultivate. agree to Daniel's addition, i.e. "built online" -Joe Quick 00:10, 17 July 2010 (UTC) The Citizendium is a collaborative effort to collect, structure, and cultivate knowledge and to render it conveniently accessible to the public for free. It is built online by volunteers who contribute under their real names and agree to this social covenant centered around trust. D. Matt Innis 00:16, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. -Joe Quick 00:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Daniel Mietchen 01:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC) Agree. --Russell D. Jones 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC) [Click here to add your comments]