Larry, I suggest that we seek to develop a process that is as simple as it can be while still respecting the desiderata that you describe (and that make good sense to me).
Perhaps something as simple as think it is important that we develop a process that is siCould something as simple as this suffice: An discussion of reasonable but self-directed length followed by a decision determined by majority vote, with those who self-identify as possessing relevant expertise, lack of bias, etc. choosing to participate in the dicussion and vote. I think that, for our endeavor to work, we need to develop a strong desgree of respect for each other and trust of each other's judgment. This should occur over time, and this should allow us to tolerate "worst case" conflicts where editors choose to participate in a vote even when others think they ought not too -- as long as those sorts of conflicts are rare, the sort of simple scheme I described above should work out pretty well. All the best, Andy. On 10/13/06, Larry Sanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 > -- Andrew N. Carpenter, Ph.D. Kaplan University Professor, Graduate School of Criminal Justice Contact information: --------------------------------------------------------------------- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (business) [EMAIL PROTECTED]@net (personal) PhilosophyAndrew (aol/yahoo/msn/skype/google instant messaging) 877-677-5587 (business tel/fax) 443-536-3428 (mobile) 410-857-8777 (home) 1290 Laurel Lane, Westminster, MD, 21158-1940 (postal) http://andrewnorriscarpenter.com (homepage) --------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Citizendium-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.purdue.edu/mailman/listinfo/citizendium-l
